In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a victory to the Trump Administration on the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act of suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. The Court ruled that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s March 15 order temporarily blocking deportation was invalid and that he should never have proceeded in the case. Rather, as some of us previously argued, the Court ruled that this is a habeas case that should be heard in Texas. Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh to support the Administration.
Boasberg’s actions have been closely followed and heralded by many. However, for some of us, this seemed like an odd habeas action where jurisdiction should reside in Texas. The concern was that, as shown in a number of these cases, the challengers forum shopped to get a favorable judge like Boasberg in Washington.
The Court ruled, “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.” That should have been Judge Boasberg’s response when the challengers first came to his courtroom. Instead, he set off a series of irregular hearings, including holding an emergency hearing on a Saturday despite not being the designated judge for such emergency matters that week.
The justices held that custody detainees are entitled to a hearing before deportation. However, the majority also offered key support for the Administration’s argument over presidential authority, writing “[c]hallenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude[s] judicial review,’ Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas.”
The decision not only overturned Boasberg’s order but also declared the District of Columbia an inappropriate venue for the case. That is a considerable victory for the Trump Administration and validates its long-standing position in the case.
Yet, it also reaffirmed that “[r]egardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas.” Those in custody will be accorded a hearing, though the odds are weighted heavily against them in prevailing in such a habeas action. That may be part of the reason the challengers seemed to equivocate on whether this was a habeas or Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case.
The majority takes a slight dig at the liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, noting that “[f]or all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.”
That line may be directed most at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who compared the deportations to the mass confinement of Japanese Americans in World War II and the decision in Korematsu.
“I lament that the Court appears to have embarked on a new era of procedural variability, and that it has done so in such a casual, inequitable, and, in my view, inappropriate manner. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___ , ___ (2025) (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). At least when the Court went off base in the past, it left a record so posterity could see how it went wrong. See, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.”
It is a bit more difficult to discern Justice Barrett’s position, who again joined the liberal justices. However, Barrett only joined in Parts II and III-B of the dissenting opinion. Part II is merely a couple of paragraphs long and deals with the fact that these detainees must receive due process. However, the majority held that such due process must be afforded. The Court is unanimous on that point.
It is Part III-B that is curious. That section states in part:
Also troubling is this Court’s decision to vacate summarily the District Court’s order on the novel ground that an individual’s challenge to his removal under the Alien Enemies Act “fall[s] within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus” and must therefore be filed where the plaintiffs are detained. . . . This conclusion is dubious.
Dubious? What precisely does that mean? If it is not a habeas, what is it? Given the majority’s ruling in favor of due process for the detainees, Barrett’s adoption of a fraction of the dissenting opinion left much unclear as to her view on what standard applies to these detainees.
Both sides can walk away with something in this opinion. For the challengers, it does reaffirm due process. However, as noted earlier, the habeas process will prove very difficult for these detainees under the controlling standards. This is more likely to offer a process but not the result that these challengers are seeking.
Well, it’s a good start. Now time to keep getting the cases before SCOTUS so we can better delineate the rules and then use that to devise legislation that will further cement or expand these rules to support the government”s case. Congress needs to act and get legislation that reforms our immigration so we can get the immigrants we want and keep out those we don’t and provide better avenues to rapidly move the undesirables out.
I don’t care where the immigrants come from or what their race or ethnicity is. I just want to get those who are committed to the American Ideal and Culture and will add to the nation as a whole.
Biden’s immigration policy was a blatant attempt at stealing elections in the future.
There needs to be legislation that removes the president’s use of creative immigrant programs that have no basis in law and/or a requirement of legislative review of such changes if in an executive order. Ie congress needs to actually work for a change.
“Look, I think the president is doing the right thing.” China has been taking advantage of us for two decades. They’re stealing our intellectual property which means stealing our good-paying jobs”
Who spoke these wise words. Why it was no other than Chukie Schumer himself pontificating on why Obama’s tariffs on China were a good thing back in 2018. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
What the SCOTUS decision did yesterday is very important. Although limited to the case before it, the Court sent a message that filing habeas cases must be done by those having standing and in the venue where that standing is being asserted. What this says is, OK, Mr. Illegal Alien, if you wish to challenge your arrest and deportation order, you must do it where you have standing, that is, where the alleged deprivation of your rights occurred. This stops a liberal judge in Oregon, for example, issuing an order to release a detainee in Louisiana. Yesterday’s decision returns the federal courts to their communities, to serve the people in those communities and not respond to the whims of liberals and their justified self-hatred.
Being an educated woman, I regret having to admit that women are truly not capable of separating their innate emotional responses from a more intellectual and rational understanding of a situation. All of the women on this case allowed themselves to ignore the logic of the law and veer towards a more nurturing interpretation of events.
While tempering the cold logic of governance with a notion of pity/caring has always been noted – this tempering was usually, and unofficially, whispered in the ear of those who rule.
I am also beginning to see that this nation’s path to societal chaos began when women were given the vote.
I am very sorry to state this but it is becoming apparent that also giving the vote to those with ” no dog in the hunt” so to speak, has allowed those with nothing to vote for the government to give them money for nothing.
Undoing this will prove impossible and hence our downward slide will continue.
A totally cogent statement, and one that is easily demonstrated. I, like you, lament this reality. But, fact is fact.
Chicks are meant for one thing and one thing only.
On a particular level, I will agree with you up to a point. There have always been exceptional women in positions of authority or scientific investigation but this fake feminist push to promote women above their punching weight has only added to the myth that all woman are stupid.
I created my own business after receiving a BA, but I never used my “femininity” to advance my success, in fact I flourished within the milieu of the US Army because of competence alone. THAT should be the only parameter used to rate females.
whimsical: I join you in lamenting the bases (plural) for many decisions made by women, not only in jurisprudence, but also in legislative roles (think Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins). Their decisions and votes are soooo predictable- they respond more like disciplining mothers (Murkowski) or emotion-over-logic women (Collins). Some fellow commenters on this site believe that “Gigi” and “George” are one and the same, but to me, there are some commenters on this blog that are clearly combative, defensive, emotion-driven females. (the Greek/Latin root word of hysteria being hyster or hystera)
If you belive in evolution you are of an opinion that females fill particular roles within their species that differentiates them from the males of their species. Hunter gatherers relied more on males to provide the raw material and females created a liveable home from this while nursing children.
If you are of a religious bend, you totally understand the concept of “helpmate”.
Either way, in almost all species the differences between the 2 species serve particular purposes.
Oh, BTW, we need a federal law that adds a federal felony charge any time a local, state, or federal crime is committed by someone in the country illegally. That ought to grease the skids for easy detention and deportation…
Old Fish, excellent idea.
So, who really nominated KJB to the SCOTUS? We know Old Joe, from Scranton, thought he was in a nice house somewhere in Scranton, he just didn’t know exactly where. Some insider (Barry, maybe) put this buffoon up for nomination. We know Joe was out of his mind, so let’s dig deeper and get this appointment overturned. It was definitely NOT made by a president . . . Autopen appointment!
I think that a challenge of that nature probably would have needed to be made prior to Senate confirmation.
That is an interesting thought. This scandal of just who was running thus country for 4 years needs a very deep and thorough investigation.
Dear Mr. Turley, the person at 8:06 a.m. said everything I had hoped to say. Excellent comment!!!
Presidents must stop assuming Ivy League law professors make good Supreme Court justices. They do not. Before joining the Court, most Ivy League professors succumb to their adoring students’ ideation of what is Justice and what is a judge. This, in turn, gives a false air of superiority to the judgments of these isolated faculty lounge members. If, as some believe, “life experience’ means something for members of the other two branches, perhaps it’s time to pick a big-city Part A felony court judge for the next seat on the SCOTUS. Those nice boys and girls teaching and learning at Harvard or Yale, from where most of our SCOTUS justices now come, have never seen a real criminal in vivo. Smart comes from books; wisdom comes from experience. We need more of the latter and less of the former.
Maybe one of our s@@tlib friends can explain why it is desirable to keep criminal illegal aliens in the country. And calling me a ‘nazi’ is not a reply.
antonio
Anonymous
I hope the criminal illegals are returned to your upper middle class neighborhood and housed with section 8 vouchers. Just flash your “good white” card and they will leave you alone.
antonio
OT, but all the trolls here hoping for that Black Monday the ever-liar Crybaby Cramer claimed would happen, I hope you bought those “overpriced” eggs that are now on your face.
So in other words, Trump told you financial destruction was good and you jumped for joy. He could tell you your sh!t was delicious chocolate ice cream and you’d savor every lick.
Trump has got to hope China gets him out of this. All Xi has to do to win the tariff war is to financially harm his people more than Trump is willing to harm Americans. That’s a toss up.
LOL, as you wipe the baby batter off your face.
I believe even judges can be tried for treason!
do they give a test to these moron DEI judges?
So district judges don’t step in as Democrats import foreign soldiers, criminals, gangs, terrorists, drug dealers.
but they step in when Trump banishes them.
Seems these judges are committing Treason, like lots of Democrats across government!
I don’t recall judges fighting the US wars!
Finally Supreme Court steps in and rules, to stop this Circus and the Trump hating Left Wing Radical Judge Boasberg who was.is seeking to defend Murders, Thugs, Gang members all to defeat Pres. Trump and try to set a contempt trap. It was shown, by Julie Kelly, the Boasberg knew this lawsuit was coming before hand and he made sure it was assigned to him.
Boasberg should have known he had no Jurisdiction but his hate for Trump and radical beliefs blinded him from following the law.
Boasberg should be removed from the bench for his radical activist positions on this case and several others. Courts and Justices should view the law and the Constitution and try cases unbiased, but Boasberg went far left. Perhaps he could serve on Washington DC ‘s Night Court?
Today Boasberg is going to hold a Contempt case on a case that he has never had Jurisdiction and violates the 1948 rulings that the Supreme Court sighted. He hates Trump that much. HE should do as DOJ recommends cancel the hearing and dismiss the case but, not this radical Judge. Seems he like to be lectured and over ruled by the Supreme Court.
When he was held not to have jurisdiction doesn’t it follow that any further proceedings must be stopped? It would be odd to consider the possibility of contempt for orders that were not lawful to begin with.
I’m not a lawyer (thankfully) but I expect that in years ahead, this decision will be required learning in all law schools. Whatever the final ruling turns out to be, it seems that there is a certain type of precedent included in this order, regarding proper jurisdictions. I’m happy for our country that this didn’t go the other way. People think The Left is the only side capable of violent demonstrations. I truly do hate to think what the response from The Right would have been had this order not being successfully achieved.
This is properly a habeas matter for Texas. The court is correct in recognizing the overlap between the federal statute and the habeas requirement. Procedurally, as is so often the case, president Trump remains inconsiderate of procedure. His attorneys should educate him on the fact that procedure accounts for all substantive candidates in a heuristic manner so that there is some explanatory force to their eventual decision. Barrett is a procedural formalist. It is good that she is there to remind us of the often disastrous effects of failing to heed process in favor of a preferred result.
The question is not whether habeas in Texas is proper but whether that habeas in Texas is the exclusive venue. See the below post. Alito and Roberts have previously held otherwise
No, they have not.
Trump is a businessman, and as such, will do what he wants till some lawyer explains why he can’t.
Professor Turley,
The JGG claims aren’t “core” in any sense. The Plaintiffs aren’t challenging state criminal sentences, or even their removability generally. In fact, they’re not even seeking release. All the TROs and injunction seek is a bar on transfer under the AEA. The form of relief the plaintiffs seek isn’t just “outside the core;” it’s on the other side of the universe.
On whether this type of relief is “core,” I’ll cede the floor to Justice Alito. Here’s his majority opinion in DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020), on whether the Suspension Clause permitted Congress to strip habeas power over expedited removal procedure: “Rejecting th[e] use of habeas [to bar transfers to foreign sovereigns], we noted that habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention and that what these individuals wanted was not simple release but an order requiring them to be brought to this country. Claims so far outside the core of habeas may not be pursued through habeas.” I’ll also borrow from Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court in Munaf v. Geren (2008): “[H]abeas is not appropriate [when claimants seek to preclude transfer to another sovereign so that they may face criminal charges]. Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release. But here the last thing petitioners want is simple release … .” Thuraissigiam and Munaf don’t mean that habeas claimants can never stop transfer orders, but those decisions extinguish DOJ’s argument that such remedies are “core” habeas relief.
“those decisions extinguish DOJ’s argument that such remedies are “core” habeas relief”
IANAL, but I was going to ask whether Barrett might not be making a distinction between “habeas corpus”, which appears to apply specifically to detention and/or imprisonment, and simple removal from the US. If that is the case, maybe the Administration would be advised to drop the use of the AEA and come up with another justification for expedited removal. I suspect that Trump’s legal staff may have something more up their sleeved in that regard.
The class here was anyone potentially subject to the Proclamation. That includes people who would be detained and removed solely under the Proclamation. As to them, the challenge would necssarily involve not merely removal but also release. So even if a claim to prevent removal is not core, that is not all that was involved here.
The APA also provides that it is not available if there is another adequate legal remedy. Even if not core, habeas would be available, so the APA should not be. Brownell is to the contrary but that was promptly reversed by congressional action.
Why would the challenge “necessarily involve not merely removal but also release?” This is the same conclusory statement made by the Per Curiam opinion. The citation is to a class of wholly UNRELATED cases, namely the Preiser line of cases specifying permissible Section 1983 claims. All these cases involve the administration of state criminal sentences, and NOT ONE has anything to do with immigration detention – let alone removal or rendition to a foreign detention site. This line of cases holds that a challenge to a criminal sentence is a “core” habeas challenge, and any order that would directly invalidate or reduce a sentence is a “core” relief. If either (1) the challenge or (2) the relief wasn’t “core” then Section 1983 remedies were available. Hence in Dotson, “Section 1983 remains available for procedural challenges where success in the action WOULD NOT NECESSARILY SPELL IMMEDIATE OR SPEEDIER RELEASE FOR THE PRISONER.” (emphasis mine).
Can you site a single case outside of the Section 1983 context, where the Court has arguable that habeas was the only remedy?
Further, the “adequate legal remedy” language has been repeatedly defined extremely narrowly. There are substantive differences between bringing a habeas action and one under the APA, which clearly make habeas NOT an adequate legal remedy in this case.
First, with respect to the 270+ individuals who have already been removed from the country, habeas may not be available. This is the exact argument the government is making in the Abrego Garcia case.
Second, the scope of review in a habeas petition is unlikely to be commensurate with what is available under the APA. Among other things, there’s less case law supporting emergency relief in habeas cases. There are additional practical roadblocks to certifying a class of affected individuals in habeas cases (because each member of the class is presumably challenging their detention, versus seeking facial review of government action). Unlike under the APA, there’s no specter of “universal” relief in a habeas case. And, although Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence plays up the use of habeas historically to prevent unlawful transfers to foreign countries before they happen, the very D.C. Circuit case that he cites in support, “Kiyemba II” (in which he was one of the judges), held that Guantánamo detainees could not use habeas to block their transfer to a foreign country based upon fear that they would be tortured there—so long as the federal government said they wouldn’t be.
Totally unrelated. Try again.
How does Jackson compare this situation with the situation argued in Korematsu? The present case involves people here illegally (and most likely violent criminals on top of that) being deported while the previous case involved American citizens being rounded up and sent to internment camps.
This is the kind of “result oriented” legal reasoning that brings about such flawed, in my opinion, “logic”. The leftist Justices will form their reasoning into any rediculous contortion in order to end up with the result they wanted from the beginning.
Having Sotomayor join in the dissent is just further proof of my contention above and Kagan hasn’t strayed from liberal orthodoxy very often either. Of course Barrett’s joining is very troubling, but hopefully there is some arcane legal reasoning that put her with the loons. It is a relief to see Roberts come down on the correct legal reasoning.
What is clearly abysmal is that 4 SCOTUS Judges charged with the sole responsibility of upholding the Constitution, believe that Judge Boasberg was well within his authority to not only hear this case but issue the rulings and conduct a criminal investigation against the President. I have very little faith in the Judicial Branch to carry out their core function of unbiased arbiters of facts under the Constitution!!!!
There is an asymmetry that infuriates. The criminal Biden administration used our money to easily bring millions of undesirables into our country and a real President is going to have a legal battle to remove each one. What is wrong with this picture?
This problem needs to be attacked on every front at once:
District court scope of authority
Employer punishment
E-verify nation wide
Housing ban
Driver’s license ban
Build the wall then add tech
Remittance ban
Fully defund and prosecute rogue NGOs
and more