Summary of "Trump Deportations Smacked Down By SCOTUS!" – Bulwark Takes
Podcast Information:
- Title: Bulwark Takes
- Host/Author: The Bulwark
- Description: The news cycle doesn’t slow down, and neither does The Bulwark. Bulwark Takes brings you bite-sized takes on the news of the day from the entire Bulwark team, including Tim Miller, Sarah Longwell, and Bill Kristol, and more.
- Episode: Trump Deportations Smacked Down By SCOTUS!
- Release Date: May 16, 2025
Introduction
In the May 16, 2025 episode of Bulwark Takes, host Tim Miller and guest Andrew Egger, author of The Bulwark's Morning Shots newsletter, delve into a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) concerning the Trump administration's deportation policies. The episode, titled "Trump Deportations Smacked Down By SCOTUS!", provides an in-depth analysis of the Court's ruling against the administration's efforts to expel Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.
Supreme Court Ruling on Venezuelan Migrants
Tim Miller opens the discussion by announcing the Supreme Court's decision that the Trump administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelan migrants in their attempt to deport them to El Salvador. He emphasizes that this ruling aligns with a previous SCOTUS decision blocking further deportations under similar circumstances.
“They have held that the Trump administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelan migrants last month in its effort to expel them to El Salvador.” [00:00]
Miller clarifies that the Supreme Court did not make a broad ruling on the Trump administration’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) but specifically found the administration’s deportation process unlawful.
“The Supreme Court did not give a ruling on whether the Trump administration can remove migrants under the Alien Enemies act at all. It's just, they just ruled that the process in which they attempted to do it was against the law.” [00:00]
Andrew Egger elaborates on the procedural nature of the ruling, explaining that the case is sent back to a circuit court for reconsideration under different parameters. He references the SCOTUS blog to highlight the specificity of the decision.
“The unsigned majority instructs the Fifth Circuit to address the normal preliminary injunction factors as to the group's underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal as to President Trump's March 14th proclamation.” [01:21]
Egger underscores the significance of the Court allowing the migrants to be treated as a class, which streamlines their legal battle and avoids the complexities of individual litigations.
“The Supreme Court has said no, there is this jurisdiction to treat these people as a class and the circuit must consider them on on those grounds as it retries this.” [02:00]
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
The conversation shifts to the broader implications of the ruling. Andrew Egger describes the decision as a substantial rebuke to the Trump administration, emphasizing the Court's role in upholding the rule of law despite administrative pressures.
“It's a pretty big punch back, It's a brush back pitch from the Supreme Court against the Trump administration.” [02:00]
Egger criticizes the Trump administration's strategy of threatening the courts without actually defying rulings, noting that the administration has shown reluctance to follow through on threats when the Court does not rule in their favor.
Tim Miller adds that the ruling is particularly critical for migrants facing dire situations, such as those in El Salvador’s prison camps. He mentions a fundraiser hosted by The Bulwark and Crooked Media to support the legal teams fighting these deportations.
“The lawyers... trying to help their clients that have disappeared, that ruling that they can be considered as a class is extremely important.” [04:00]
Miller highlights the ideological leanings within the Supreme Court, noting the 7-2 decision against the administration and pointing out that no Trump-appointed justices sided with the deportation efforts.
“The fact that it's 7:2 is pretty notable. Like, not a single Trump appointed Supreme Court justice has sided with him on any of these cases.” [05:00]
Analysis of Supreme Court Justices and Political Dynamics
The discussion turns to the composition and behavior of the Supreme Court justices. Tim Miller critiques Justice Amy Coney Barrett, suggesting her decisions are increasingly misaligned with Trump’s agenda, likening her to Liz Cheney for her stance against MAGA-favored rulings.
“Amy Coney Barrett has been cast out of MAGA good standing over her rulings.” [06:08]
Andrew Egger reflects on the justice’s independence and the potential implications for future Supreme Court appointments by Trump. He expresses concern over Trump's ability to select justices who might not remain loyal in critical moments, referencing past cabinet appointments as a cautionary example.
“We're really, I hope we don't have the opportunity to find out what second term Donald Trump Supreme Court justices will look like given how his first term ones seem, seem willing to cross him.” [07:06]
Miller speculates on potential future appointments, sarcastically suggesting individuals like Martha Raddatz and referencing Justice Samuel Alito to underscore concerns about the Court’s direction.
“I'll tell you who's on the short list for me. Martha and Alito.” [08:40]
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
Andrew Egger concludes on a positive note, appreciating the Supreme Court's decision amidst typically negative news cycles.
“No, it's some good Friday afternoon news for a change.” [09:19]
Tim Miller wraps up the episode by encouraging listeners to stay informed, subscribe, and support ongoing legal efforts to aid the affected migrants.
“Enjoy your weekend, everybody.” [09:29]
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court's Ruling: The Court found the Trump administration violated due process in deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, focusing on the unlawful process rather than the AEA itself.
- Class Action Significance: Allowing migrants to be treated as a class simplifies their legal battle and enhances their chances of a favorable outcome.
- Judicial Independence: The ruling represents a strong stance by the Supreme Court against executive overreach, highlighting the justices' commitment to upholding the rule of law.
- Future Concerns: Both hosts express apprehension about potential future Supreme Court appointments by Trump and their implications for U.S. immigration policies and judicial integrity.
- Support for Migrants: The discussion underscores the importance of legal support and public advocacy in protecting migrants' rights against executive actions.
This episode of Bulwark Takes provides a comprehensive and engaging analysis of a pivotal Supreme Court decision, its immediate impact on immigration policy, and the broader judicial and political landscape. Through insightful commentary and notable quotes, Tim Miller and Andrew Egger elucidate the complexities and significance of the Court's ruling, making the content accessible and informative for listeners seeking to understand the nuances of this legal development.