SCOTUS Delivers Gut Punch to Trump’s Due Process Fantasy

Summary

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.

Transcript

[Sam Stein]

Hey guys, it's me, Sam Stein, managing editor at the Bulwark. I'm here with Ryan Goodman, our friend from Just Security. We are going to be talking about a Supreme Court decision that dropped tonight. Tonight being Monday, April 7th, right before the big basketball game. Thanks, SCOTUS. Before we get to that, Ryan, thank you for joining us. And thank you guys for watching us subscribe to our feed. We really appreciate it. All right, so Ryan, this case had to deal with the use of the Aliens Enemies act to deport Venezuelan migrants who were being detained. Highly controversial because what happened was a couple weeks ago, with almost no warning, in fact maybe some subterfuge, the administration put about 300 migrants on a plane, brought them to El Salvador and then kind of messed around with the judge and were not being very forthcoming about the circumstances and they may have in fact violated the judge's decree that they don't do it subsequently. It's turned out that in all likelihood a couple of these migrants at least were wrongfully sent there. We know in fact one was definitely wrongfully sent there because the government admitted it. The Supreme Court didn't rule on that specific case, but they did rule on a narrow issue of the Aliens Enemies act. Give us the 30,000 foot ruling summary and then I'm going to pepper you some questions.

[Ryan Goodman]

Sure. So the 30,000 foot summary is one. The Supreme Court extinguished the district court judge's order by saying essentially this is the wrong place to bring the lawsuit. They should have brought it as a habeas petition, meaning for somebody who's being held in custody, where that person is held in custody in that location, which just so happens to be Texas.

[Sam Stein]

A little more hostile.

[Ryan Goodman]

A little hostile and a little bit of an explanation as to why the government brought all of these people from different parts of the country to Texas to then fly them out. Because that would be a very hospitable jurisdiction for the government. The, the, the most conservative jurisdiction of any of the jurisdictions that are out there. So the Supreme Court just basically said the district court was wrong. This should have initially been brought in Texas. The only other piece that I would mention at the 30,000 foot level that's super important for people not to lose sight of is that the Supreme Court does give a back of the hand to one of the government's main arguments in the D.C. court of Appeals oral argument. Lo and behold, the Department of Justice lawyers said, yes, people have habeas rights. They also wanted it in Texas, but we need to give them no notice and no time to pursue their habeas petition, we could just fly them out of the country without even warning them in advance. And the Supreme Court today says no, they get due process and that includes notice and a full opportunity to realize their habeas rights.

[Sam Stein]

Right. And that seems, I know the headlines are that the administration won this case. And in fact, there's a lot of crowing. We have Stephen Miller out there. We're going to show the tweet saying, oh, we can go ahead and do everything we wanted to do. We can use the Alien Enemies act now and, and deport all these people. The reality, as I read it, and I, I am not a lawyer, but the reality is far different in my vantage point, which is they do actually have to give a warning to people that they are being targeted for the alien and under the Alien Enemies act. And those people in turn would get a right for habeas petition. Now, yes, in a hostile venue. And I want to get into the distinction between habe's petition and the Administrative Procedure act petition, but to me, this doesn't necessarily ring like a government a Trump administration victory.

[Ryan Goodman]

That's right. Totally agree with everything you said that in all likelihood, we're now going to see the new litigation taking place, admittedly in Texas, but then it and any, any of these cases are in some sense going to be brought up to the Supreme Court. Finally have the decision. Yeah, yeah. So whatever Texas decides and the circuit decides.

[Sam Stein]

I guess the other question is what, and this is important is what did the Supreme Court not render a decision on? Because there are big questions that still are unanswered.

[Ryan Goodman]

Absolutely. In fact, the Supreme Court basically says, look, when these habeas cases come up, then we will render opinions on a bunch of questions and that in habeas people can bring up claims about the constitutionality of the Alien Enemies act, the statutory interpretation of the Alien Enemies act, and whether or not somebody is properly identified as a Venezuelan tenant TDA member.

[Sam Stein]

Yeah, that's the big one, is how are they identifying Venezuelans as trend members? And also secondarily is. And maybe I'm over interpreting this, but how does the government make the distinction that we are in an act of war and trend Aragua is a foreign entity invading America, which it seems like is the prerequisite for using the aea.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, they're doing that in the most outlandish way, that as long as, as far as I'm concerned, as long as the Supreme Court says that that is justiciable, that they can actually look under the hood and scrutinize the government's basis for making that claim, the government will lose. And that government basically lost that at the D.C. court of Appeals, including by a conservative judge.

[Sam Stein]

So the government says, we don't even want to argue it. You just have to take our word for it. And that. But that's still in play.

[Ryan Goodman]

That's absolutely in play, it seems, especially because the Supreme Court today kind of signaled it as well. And. Yeah, so I think that's going to be litigated and I'll throw out one other curveball.

[Sam Stein]

Sure.

[Ryan Goodman]

So I do think this is everything that we've described in terms of people who are currently being detained and could be deported. What about the 200 plus people? Up to 300 people in El Salvador, they too should be able to get habeas claims because including the fact that today the U.S. supreme Court just said they were denied due process rights because they weren't given notice in other opportunity, etc. If anything, if you read the notice that the government gave some of them something, got no notice at all. It actually says you are not entitled to judicial review. Okay, I told them the opposite.

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

So here's the interesting piece. If they bring habeas, where would they bring it? There's a very good argument that if you're going to bring extraterritorial habeas, you bring it in D.C. so it might all be going back to Judge Bobersberg for those people that have already been taken out of the country. And we'll see how that plays out.

[Sam Stein]

Well, then the administration would appeal that and say, no, you have to do it in Texas and we'll have to end up in the exact same spot, potentially.

[Ryan Goodman]

So, yeah.

[Sam Stein]

Okay. Jesus. Without, without, like, I don't know if it's possible to do this, but without getting too much in the weeds, what is the actual distinction between a habeas petition and the Administrative Procedure Act? What kind of restraints do these detainees or these migrants have by not going through the apa?

[Ryan Goodman]

I think the. Interestingly, the biggest constraint is the jurisdiction in which they'd have to bring the.

[Sam Stein]

Okay, so if it was under the apa, you maybe could say, no, we're going to bring it in D.C. but now with habeas, it's where you're confined.

[Ryan Goodman]

Absolutely, yes.

[Sam Stein]

Okay. Talk about the dissents a little bit, because I know you're reading through those.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah. So interestingly, Justice Barrett joins the dissent. So it's a 5, 4 decision. She joins parts of the dissent. And to me, one of the most interesting parts that she decides to join is like a two paragraph part. It's part two. And what does part two say? But Justice Sotomayor, who's writing the dissent, says it is important to note that all nine justices today agree that these individuals get due process, rights, notice, opportunity to be heard, et cetera. And it's funny because some people are also pointing out Stephen Miller's prior ex tweets in which he said these people get no due process, which is the Supreme Court saying that is, that's not totally unconstitutional. Yeah. So I think that that's an important part. And then she also spells out the other legal questions that could also arise in habeas that we just discussed. Now, even though Justice Barrett does join that, there's a part of me that I think some members of the five majority, Alito Thomas, would say we didn't agree with that.

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

We didn't agree. Yeah.

[Sam Stein]

Sotomayor and her descent, she had this kind of harrowing point about, and I'm not sure if this is how you read it, but she said, you know, this decision does give the administration the green light to just kind of keep disappearing people. Now, I don't know if I, if I read it the same way because they would have to get a notification that they are under the Alien Enemies act jurisdiction. But maybe I'm misreading it. I'm curious if you read her dissent at all.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, no, I did. I do think that the, I don't read it that way. I read that there's a narrowing way you can read the Supreme Court, and I think that's the proper way to read what the Supreme Court's saying. I do think she's right about a lot of the optics of what the Supreme Court just did, because they are in some ways giving not a green light, but they are encouraging the Trump administration to have gotten away with what looks like contempt of court, etc. And one of the pieces that we haven't discussed is what's still in front of just Judge Boasberg in D.C. is did U.S. officials act in total contempt of his orders? Now, it's true that his orders have now been determined to be vacated.

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

And should have, that he didn't have jurisdiction. But it doesn't mean that people can get away with, you can't say, oh, well, we acted in contempt because you didn't have, you know, the Supreme Court was going to overrule you later.

[Sam Stein]

Yeah. You can't, you can see the future and predict it and say, well, that's why we were in contempt. So Brosburg still can have adjudication of whether or not they acted in contempt of his order.

[Ryan Goodman]

He could. It's a little bit of an uphill battle because it's in contempt of an order that has been vacated. And let alone it's in contempt of an order that's being vacated on the basis that he shouldn't have had jurisdiction in the first place, but he certainly could. And if they come back with habeas in D.C. and he thinks that that's proper, then I think he's in a much better position to proceed ahead with the contempt hearings.

[Sam Stein]

Now, the dissent made a lot, did reference a lot how the government was incredibly shady through the process of this.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yes.

[Sam Stein]

Did that. Did we get any sense if that factored into the majority, if that affected, you know, how Roberts, for instance, looked at this or.

[Ryan Goodman]

No, it's a great question. There's, I think, no indication of how Roberts looked at that. I also think that that might have been the reason why Justice Barrett did not join Sotomayor in that particular part of her dissent. Because I think you could be in Justice Barrett's position and say, I'm not going to render a judgment on that yet. I don't want to prejudge that because that might be coming right back to us as a contempt issue. And then we will have to look at the facts as to what exactly the government did to try to evade court jurisdiction.

[Sam Stein]

That makes sense. Last question for you. There is a separate drama earlier today about this Maryland man who the government admits was wrongfully sent to El Salvador against judicial decree that he should not be sent there. There was supposed to be a deadline at midnight for them to get him back to Elsa from El Salvador. Government has basically told various judges, pound sand, we don't have jurisdiction, can't get to him. He's in El Salvador. The earlier in the day, Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts issued a stay, essentially just giving more time for a resolution here. I don't think he was tipping his hand, but that's not covered in this. And that still is to be determined, correct?

[Ryan Goodman]

100%, except the two are very much related to one another. In fact, that's in some ways that you're bringing it up in the context of the other conversation because the Maryland man is in El Salvador.

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

And the question is, can the US Government be compelled to bring him back?

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

That's the 200 plus. That's the 287 or whatever. That's the year 300 people. The answer that the Supreme Court gives to The Maryland man is going to significantly implicate the fate of those other people that have been in their ability.

[Sam Stein]

To file a habeas petition. Yeah. Okay.

[Ryan Goodman]

Absolutely. Yeah.

[Sam Stein]

Wow. So they just upped the ante, essentially.

[Ryan Goodman]

Absolutely. And part of me thinks that Justice Rob, Chief Justice Roberts often does like, you know, give one to one side and one to the other. So in a way, he did what this, the Trump administration wanted in the Boasberg case.

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

Maybe he's going to come out the other way on the Maryland case.

[Sam Stein]

And do we have any. Sorry, I should know this, but what's the deadline he gave?

[Ryan Goodman]

It's tomorrow. I think it's about 5pm so it's just like an extra amount of time for a briefing. But the interesting thing is he said, I'm giving that amount of time for the petitioners to get back to me. And then the petitioners, I think, filed within 30 minutes.

[Sam Stein]

Yeah, they were ready.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah, exactly. And the government's arguments in that case are particularly atrocious. I'll give one example of it.

[Sam Stein]

Well, the Fourth Circuit really smacked him down. Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

Fourth Circuit smacked them down, including on the fact that the allegation that the man is Ms. 13.

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

That the government presented no evidence of that to the district court. That's the time, that's the opportunity to present the evidence. You have it. And let alone the new Solicitor General of the United States, Sawyer, in his first brief to the U.S. supreme Court, says that this person is a veritable Ms. 13 member, which is ridiculous, given what the Fourth Circuit said that it's not. They didn't argue that Ryan will ultimately.

[Sam Stein]

Matter because the fundamental question is jurisdictional. Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

I know. I hear you, though. The government tries to make hay of this is an equitable situation. So when you're weighing the equities, you've got to think, remember that we're trying to deal with MS.13 and this MS.13 member. And the answer is no, we don't. Because you didn't even argue that.

[Sam Stein]

Right. Well, we'll see. I'll have you back on at 5pm tomorrow to discuss. All right. Ryan Goodman of Just Security, thank you so much, bud. Really appreciate it. Thank you guys for watching. Watching. Really enjoy these conversations. I hope you do, too. Subscribe to the feed and we'll see you later.