The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday to hand the Trump administration a major victory in the legal battle over the deportation of Venezuelan nationals.
This from scotusblog.com.
However, “conservative” justice Amy Coney Barrett joined three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—in dissenting. Ultimately, the majority voted to lift a federal judge’s order temporarily blocking the deportations of Venezuelans accused of links to the gang Tren de Aragua.
The ruling stated that flights could resume for now, but migrants must be afforded due process.
MAGAworld had a meltdown the last time Barrett voted against Trump.
Barrett was thought of as a conservative judge, and perhaps she was but that was before she became compromised. She had even been branded as a “DEI pick” for voting to reject the Trump administration’s request to withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid.
Trump later defended her from his own base, calling Barrett a “very good” and “very smart” woman.
In their dissent, Sotomayor wrote:
The government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law.
Jackson called out the majority’s “fly-by-night approach” and “rushed conclusion,” as she argued:
[The temporary restraining order would have prevented] immediate harm to the targeted individuals while the court considered the lawfulness of the government’s conduct.
The 1798 law at the center of the case is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court if either of two things occurs:
Congress declares war, or there is an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion.’
The law has been invoked only three times: During the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
Trump’s executive order focuses on a large Venezuelan gang named Tren de Aragua, which began in Venezuela’s prisons and then spread into other parts of Latin America and, eventually, the United States. In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated it as a “foreign terrorist organization.”
Trump specified in his order that TdA “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” Therefore, he concluded, “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”
Even before Trump issued the order, a group of Venezuelan nationals in immigration custody went to federal court in Washington, D.C. They said they feared they would be removed, and they challenged Trump’s attempt to rely on the Alien Enemies Act.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg quickly prohibited the federal government from removing any of the individual plaintiffs for 14 days. In a separate order issued later that day, Boasberg barred the government from removing anyone else under the Alien Enemies Act. During a hearing, Boasberg also ordered any flights to remove noncitizens that had already taken off to return to the United States.
In an unsigned opinion on Monday evening, five of the court’s conservative justices—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—indicated they would “not reach” the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the application of the AEA to them. Instead, the majority explained, because the relief that they are seeking “necessarily” suggests that their confinement in immigration custody and removal under the AEA is invalid, they must bring their claims as habeas corpus claims—that is, a challenge to the legality of their detention.
Beyond the decision itself, of utmost importance here is the compromised Coney Barrett siding with the three activist justices: Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor. As quoted above, President Trump had come to Coney Barrett’s defense, however, a serious look must be taken to determine the rationale behind her unconstitutional decisions.
We the People know the other three are unconstitutional activists, but what has compromised Coney Barrett? Was it blackmail, financial enrichment, or a threat(s) to her personally or a family member or loved one?
Sadly, the question of whether to remove hostile entities from this country should have been a 9-0 unanimous decision, however, to imagine the combination of three activist justices, one compromised justice, and one pederast/Epstein Island justice may very well have endangered the wellbeing of our beloved country is disconcerting to say the least.
