Summary of "Sneak Preview: The Supreme Court Just Gave The Trump Administration Everything It Wanted—Almost"

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern, Slate Senior Writer
Release Date: April 8, 2025

Introduction

In the April 8, 2025 episode of Amicus, host Dahlia Lithwick delves into a pivotal Supreme Court decision affecting the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. The episode, titled "Sneak Preview: The Supreme Court Just Gave The Trump Administration Everything It Wanted—Almost," features an in-depth discussion with Mark Joseph Stern, a senior writer at Slate, who provides expert analysis on the legal ramifications of the Court's ruling.

Background: The Alien Enemies Act and Deportation to El Salvador

The episode opens with Lithwick contextualizing the urgency of the Supreme Court's decision. Since March 15, the Trump administration has been deporting hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to the SECOT megaprison in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act—a statute traditionally reserved for times of declared war. This move has sparked significant legal challenges, questioning the administration's authority and the legality of using such powers for deportations.

Supreme Court's Decision: Lifting the Temporary Restraining Order

Lithwick highlights that the Supreme Court issued an unsigned per curiam order by a narrow 5-4 margin on the Monday preceding the episode's release. This decision effectively allows the Trump administration to continue its deportation practices, overturning the temporary restraining order (TRO) previously issued by Judge James Boasberg in the D.C. courtroom.

Dahlia Lithwick remarks at [00:09]:

"We are releasing this extra episode of Amicus on Tuesday afternoon because the tsunami of cases now hitting the Supreme Court are on this question of the Alien Enemies Act."

Mark Joseph Stern elaborates at [02:15]:

"The court lifted the temporary restraining order that Judge Boasberg had issued barring the Trump administration from continuing to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act."

Impact on Class Action Lawsuit vs. Individual Habeas Corpus Petitions

The core of the discussion centers on two intertwined cases:

1. Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Case: Previously discussed in another episode, this case challenges the legality of the deportation under the Alien Enemies Act.

2. Class Action Suit in D.C.: This broader lawsuit, certified by Judge Boasberg, represents several hundred Venezuelan migrants seeking to halt the deportation program.

The Supreme Court's ruling mandates that plaintiffs abandon their class action status and instead pursue individual habeas corpus petitions in the districts where they are confined—primarily South Texas, a jurisdiction known for its conservative stance and Trump-appointed judges.

Mark Joseph Stern explains at [02:15]:

"The Supreme Court... is ordering all of these plaintiffs to instead file much narrower habeas petitions."

Challenges for Migrants Post-Decision

Lithwick underscores the systemic issues arising from the Court's decision. Moving from a collective class action to individual lawsuits places an immense burden on detainees, many of whom lack adequate legal representation or resources to navigate the complex habeas corpus process.

Dahlia Lithwick observes at [04:52]:

"Very few of these detainees have a lawyer on speed dial... the very notion that each and every one of these people has access to and the ability to seek legal representation in a habeas case is in and of itself kind of bonkers."

Mark Joseph Stern concurs at [05:27]:

"They are going to be stuck trying to find lawyers... dealing with a government that has at every turn said, we want to deport these people as fast as possible and shown no interest or respect in their own rights to protest their rendition to El Salvador."

Legal and Humanitarian Implications

The discussion highlights the Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of legal avenues available to the migrants, effectively stifling broad constitutional challenges. By dismissing the class action, the Court removes a unified front against the deportation policy, rendering individual plaintiffs vulnerable to inconsistent and potentially biased judicial outcomes in conservative districts.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a reflection on the broader implications of the Supreme Court's decision. By siding with the administration's deportation strategy, the Court has set a precedent that could limit future legal challenges against executive actions perceived as overreaching. The dismantling of the class action not only hampers the efficiency of legal redress for the migrants but also raises concerns about access to justice for marginalized populations.

Dahlia Lithwick wraps up at [06:21]:

"We'll be back with your regularly scheduled Amicus episode on Saturday morning. Until then, take good care there."

This episode of Amicus provides a comprehensive analysis of a critical Supreme Court decision, shedding light on its significant impact on both legal processes and the lives of Venezuelan migrants facing deportation. Through expert insights and detailed examination, listeners gain a clear understanding of the challenges and ramifications stemming from the Court's ruling.