SCOTUS PER CURIAM Decision Temporarily Blocking Alien Enemies Act Deportations

UnJustified

Published: Mon May 19 2025

"The President has invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to remove Venezuelan nationals who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. See Presidential Proclamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (2025). Applicants are two detainees identified as members of TdA and a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas. All of the alleged TdA members in the putative class are currently being held in U. S. detention facilities. In the application before the Court, the detainees seek injunctive relief against summary removal under the AEA. "

Summary

UnJustified Podcast Summary: SCOTUS PER CURIAM Decision Temporarily Blocking Alien Enemies Act Deportations

Release Date: May 19, 2025

Host/Authors: Allison Gill and Andrew McCabe
Podcast: UnJustified by MSW Media
Episode Title: SCOTUS PER CURIAM Decision Temporarily Blocking Alien Enemies Act Deportations

1. Introduction to the Case

In this episode, Allison Gill and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe delve into the Supreme Court's recent per curiam decision regarding the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) and its implications for deportations. The case at the center of the discussion is AARP et al v. Donald Trump, originating from the Northern District of Texas and involving the Blue Bonnet Detention Facility.

Allison Gill (00:00):
"We're going to talk about how this impacts not just the putative class here in the Northern District of Texas, but how it could reverberate nationwide."

2. Supreme Court Decision Overview

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in a per curiam opinion, which means the majority opinion is not attributed to a specific justice. This decision temporarily blocks the removal of Venezuelan nationals identified as members of the designated foreign terrorist organization, Trend Aragua TDA, under Presidential Proclamation No. 10.903.

Andrew McCabe (01:03):
"I think this is a really interesting stance that the court has taken in this very important case."

3. Majority Opinion Analysis

The majority cited procedural missteps by lower courts in handling emergency motions to restrain deportations under the AEA. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of due process, highlighting that the detainees were not given adequate notice to seek habeas relief before removal.

Allison Gill (02:25):
"We do not find its reasoning persuasive. The dissent is just talking about the putative class in the Northern District of Texas. He doesn't even want you to have that as a putative class."

Andrew McCabe (04:26):
"Super important, the timeline here as to when those steps took place because it goes to whether or not the court had jurisdiction."

4. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Alito

Justice Alito authored a 13-page dissenting opinion, challenging the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and the feasibility of class-wide relief in habeas proceedings. Alito contended that the majority's intervention was unnecessary and criticized the process by which the injunction was sought.

Allison Gill (39:45):
"Justice Alito makes two basic arguments... He’s focused on defending acceptable practice and ignores the irreparable harm argument."

Notable Quote from Alito's Dissent (as discussed by Gill and McCabe):
"Class actions for habeas corpus relief have rarely been attempted, perhaps because Rule 81A2 seems to bar the application of the civil class action rule to habeas proceedings." (Referenced at 45:07)

Allison Gill (45:39):
"The very next sentence in that article completely negates everything that Alito quoted, which means he fully cherry-picked it."

5. Concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh

Justice Kavanaugh concurred with the majority, emphasizing the urgency of resolving whether the AEA authorizes the removal of detainees without due process. He highlighted the conflicting decisions among federal district courts and expressed a preference for the Supreme Court to promptly address the legal questions at hand.

Kavanaugh's Concurrence (36:12):
"I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this court's final resolution of the critical legal issues."

Andrew McCabe (35:37):
"Kavanaugh is leaning forward and basically saying, hey, we need to decide whether it’s lawful to remove people under the Alien Enemies Act."

6. Implications of the Ruling

The Supreme Court's decision, while specific to the Northern District of Texas, sets a precedent that could influence nationwide deportation practices under the AEA. It underscores the judiciary's stance on the necessity of due process, potentially limiting the executive branch's ability to deport individuals swiftly without adequate legal protection.

Allison Gill (31:42):
"This has been rattling around in my head all week because of the Supreme Court arguments earlier…"

Andrew McCabe (38:07):
"It's a very different question than that. You cannot send people out of the country based on the AEA without due process."

7. Host Insights and Conclusions

Allison Gill and Andrew McCabe express concern over the administration's use of the AEA, highlighting the potential for abuse without stringent judicial oversight. They discuss Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, pondering the likelihood of the Supreme Court upholding the AEA's application versus enforcing due process requirements.

Allison Gill (50:31):
"I will be surprised if they declare the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act unlawful. I think they have enough votes to say it's lawful, but to lay out a due process."

Andrew McCabe (52:05):
"If they come down against the AEA, the way the AEA has been used, then Democracy Forward wins."

The hosts conclude by emphasizing that while the Supreme Court's decision halts immediate deportations under the AEA for the affected class, the broader national impact remains to be seen as lower courts and the Supreme Court itself navigate the intricacies of due process and national security.

Allison Gill (52:38):
"Thank you so much for listening to this bonus episode. We'll be back in your ears next Sunday with Unjustified."

Notable Quotes:

Allison Gill (00:00):
"We're going to talk about how this impacts not just the putative class here in the Northern District of Texas, but how it could reverberate nationwide."
Andrew McCabe (04:26):
"Super important, the timeline here as to when those steps took place because it goes to whether or not the court had jurisdiction."
Allison Gill (45:39):
"The very next sentence in that article completely negates everything that Alito quoted, which means he fully cherry-picked it."
Justice Kavanaugh (36:12):
"I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this court's final resolution of the critical legal issues."
Allison Gill (50:31):
"I will be surprised if they declare the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act unlawful. I think they have enough votes to say it's lawful, but to lay out a due process."

Conclusion

This episode of UnJustified provides an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court's intervention in deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, highlighting procedural challenges, dissenting opinions, and the potential for nationwide implications. Hosts Allison Gill and Andrew McCabe offer critical insights into the balance between national security and individual civil liberties, emphasizing the judiciary's pivotal role in upholding due process.