Bulwark Takes: SCOTUS Delivers Gut Punch to Trump’s Due Process Fantasy

Episode Overview In this episode of Bulwark Takes, hosts Sam Stein and Ryan Goodman delve into a pivotal Supreme Court decision affecting the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan migrants. Released on April 8, 2025, the discussion unpacks the implications of the ruling, the legal nuances involved, and the broader impact on government actions and migrant rights.

1. Introduction

[00:00] Sam Stein:
Sam Stein, Managing Editor at The Bulwark, introduces the episode alongside Ryan Goodman from Just Security. They set the stage by referencing a recent Supreme Court decision delivered on April 7th, coinciding with the night before a significant basketball game. Stein highlights the controversial deportation of approximately 300 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, suggesting possible violations of judicial decrees and due process.

2. Case Background

[00:00] Sam Stein:
Stein elaborates on the context, explaining that the Trump administration utilized the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants. This move was contentious due to the sudden and possibly deceitful transportation of migrants to El Salvador, potentially breaching court orders that prohibit such actions without proper justification.

[01:17] Ryan Goodman:
Goodman provides a high-level summary, stating that the Supreme Court invalidated the district court judge's order by determining that the case should have been filed as a habeas petition in Texas, where the detainees are held. He criticizes the government's strategy of concentrating migrants in Texas, a highly conservative jurisdiction favorable to their case.

3. Supreme Court's Ruling

[01:17] Ryan Goodman:
Goodman explains that the Supreme Court found the district court erred in its jurisdiction, emphasizing that the appropriate venue for the lawsuit was Texas. He underscores that this decision challenges the government's maneuvers to fly migrants out without granting them due process.

[02:49] Sam Stein:
Stein addresses the public perception of the ruling, noting that while headlines suggest a victory for the administration, the reality is more nuanced. He points out that the ruling mandates the government to provide notice to the migrants, allowing them to exercise their habeas rights, contrary to the administration's claims of unfettered authority under the AEA.

Notable Quote:
"The Supreme Court today says no, they get due process and that includes notice and a full opportunity to realize their habeas rights."
— Ryan Goodman [01:44]

4. Impact on the Trump Administration's Actions

[03:37] Ryan Goodman:
Goodman asserts that the ruling does not signify a straightforward victory for the Trump administration. Instead, it ensures that migrants are granted due process, including notice and the ability to file habeas petitions, which could lead to further litigation.

[05:23] Ryan Goodman:
He highlights that the decision affects not only those currently detained but also the approximately 200–300 migrants already in El Salvador. These individuals are now eligible to seek habeas corpus claims, potentially reversing unauthorized deportations.

Notable Quote:
"The Supreme Court did... signal it as well."
— Ryan Goodman [05:11]

5. Legal Implications and Future Litigation

[04:02] Ryan Goodman:
Goodman outlines that the Supreme Court did not address broader questions regarding the AEA's constitutionality or the criteria for designating individuals as part of the Venezuelan threat. These issues remain open for future habeas cases.

[05:53] Sam Stein:
Stein raises questions about the government's justification for classifying Venezuelans as enemies and the broader implications of declaring a state of war to justify the AEA's use.

[06:37] Ryan Goodman:
Goodman clarifies that the primary difference between a habeas petition and an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) petition lies in jurisdiction. Habeas petitions must be filed where the detainee is held, in this case, Texas, limiting the government's maneuvering space.

Notable Quote:
"The biggest constraint is the jurisdiction in which they'd have to bring the [habeas petition]."
— Ryan Goodman [06:37]

6. Dissents and Justices' Perspectives

[06:54] Ryan Goodman:
Goodman discusses the Supreme Court's narrow majority decision, emphasizing that Justice Barrett joined parts of the dissent authored by Justice Sotomayor. Sotomayor's dissent underscored that all nine justices agreed on the migrants' right to due process, contradicting administration claims of no such rights.

[07:57] Sam Stein:
Stein interprets Sotomayor's dissent as suggesting the administration could continue to "disappear people," though Goodman counters that due process requirements mitigate this risk by necessitating notice and legal proceedings.

[08:30] Ryan Goodman:
Goodman expresses skepticism about reading Sotomayor's dissent as a green light for the administration, arguing that it merely allows for judicial scrutiny of the government's claims.

Notable Quote:
"She said, you know, this decision does give the administration the green light to just kind of keep disappearing people."
— Sam Stein [07:57]

7. Related Cases and Broader Context

[09:25] Sam Stein:
Stein references a specific case involving a Maryland man wrongly deported to El Salvador, highlighting ongoing legal challenges and the administration's contentious stance on jurisdiction.

[10:07] Ryan Goodman:
Goodman connects this case to the broader legal landscape, asserting that the Supreme Court's decision will impact similar cases and questioning whether Chief Justice Roberts might shift his stance in light of recent rulings.

[12:12] Ryan Goodman:
He details the government's inadequate evidence in the Maryland case, noting the Fourth Circuit's rejection of claims linking the man to MS-13, and criticizes the Solicitor General's inflated assertions.

8. Conclusion

[13:27] Sam Stein:
Stein wraps up the episode by acknowledging the intertwined nature of the discussed cases and the ongoing legal battles. He expresses anticipation for future developments and the potential for Chief Justice Roberts to influence upcoming decisions.

[13:49] Ryan Goodman:
Goodman concurs, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's recent decision will have far-reaching implications for all involved parties, including those currently detained or deported without proper due process.

[13:54] Sam Stein:
Stein thanks Ryan Goodman for his insights and encourages listeners to subscribe for future discussions, highlighting the importance of these legal debates in shaping immigration policy and migrant rights.

Key Takeaways:

• Supreme Court Decision: The Court invalidated the lower court's jurisdiction, mandating that habeas petitions be filed in Texas.

• Due Process Affirmed: Migrants must receive notice and opportunity to present their cases, countering the administration's claims of unchecked deportation authority.

• Future Litigation: The ruling opens the door for further legal challenges, especially regarding the AEA's applicability and the classification of Venezuelan migrants.

• Dissenting Opinions: Justices highlighted the necessity of due process, challenging the administration's stance and exposing potential judicial overreach by the government.

• Related Cases: Ongoing legal battles, such as the wrongful deportation of a Maryland man, are directly influenced by the Supreme Court's recent ruling, indicating a shift towards greater judicial oversight.

This episode underscores the complexities of immigration law, the pivotal role of the judiciary in checking executive actions, and the ongoing struggle to balance national security with individual rights.