The High Court avoided normal procedures when blocking rescue, Judge Samuel Alito said in a dissent added by Judge Clarence Thomas.
Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito presented a strongly expressed dissent from a court order issued on early April 19th.
“In short, literally, in the middle of the night, the court issued unprecedented, legally questionable relief, without providing a description of the order, without giving a lower court a hearing from the opposition party, within eight hours of receiving the application,” Alito wrote.
“I refused to participate in the court orders because under circumstances there was no good reason to believe it was necessary or appropriate to issuing an order in the middle of the night.”
“Both executives and the judiciary are obligated to comply with the law. Enforcement must proceed based on the terms of the JGG order, and this court should follow established procedures,” wrote Alito.
The judiciary acted despite “it is not clear that the court has jurisdiction” or the authority to listen to the case, he wrote.
Related Stories
“Our previous paper provided little concrete support for the allegations, claiming that the applicant was at risk of immediate removal,” Alito wrote.
Administrative stays give the judiciary more time to consider urgent requests to stop deportation. The order did not provide an explanation of why the court acted.
The order was issued after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an emergency request on behalf of two Venezuelan citizens late April 18, asking the Supreme Court to immediately block their deportation.
The ACLU also sought a temporary restraining order from the District of Columbia U.S. District Court and a removal order from the Fifth Circuit, according to the application.
The group uses large illegal immigration to the United States to harm American citizens and undermine public safety, and supports the goals of the Venezuelan socialist regime, which is linked to destabilizing “American democratic nations, including the United States,” the declaration said.
The president has invoked alien enemy laws to approve “immediate arrest, detention, and removal” of members of the group who are over the age of 14 and are Venezuelan citizens who are not US citizens or legal permanent residents of the United States.
The application said ACLU clients are challenging the Trump administration to use federal law to deport them. The client said, “Trump v. I am in the immediate danger of being excluded from the United States without notice or opportunity to hear in a direct violation of this court order at JGG.”
“Many individuals are already loaded onto the bus and are likely heading to the airport,” according to an application on April 18, where there is a risk of being sent to a prison in El Salvador.
On March 15, the Trump administration used alien enemy laws to deport at least 137 Venezuelans to El Salvador, and is now jailed at Salvadora’s terrorism confinement center “probably for the rest of their lives.”
The application allegedly stated that many of those deported since March 15 were not members of Tren de Aragua.
“This false accusation is particularly devastating given the strong claims of current applicants’ strong relief under our immigration law,” the application said.
The application comes a day after U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix for the Northern District of Texas denied an ACLU client’s request to halt efforts to remove temporary restraining orders.
Hendrix rejected the ACLU’s claim that the client was “at imminent risk of a summary deletion” as the government denied the allegations.
Late April 19th, D. Attorney General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to refuse the application.
“At least, if the court maintains an administrative stay, the government will respectfully request that the court be made clear that it is an administrative reservation under the (an alien enemy law), and that the order will not exclude removal in accordance with other immigration authorities,” writes Sauer.
