Monday evening, the Supreme Court (in Trump v. J.G.G.) ruled by a vote of 5 to 4 that a district judge in D.C. did not have jurisdiction to issue temporary restraining orders that barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan nationals that it believed to be
members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
At the same time, observed Ed Whelan in a post to National Review, all nine justices agreed that Venezuelan nationals whom the Trump administration sought to deport via President Trump’s Alien Enemies Act (AEA) proclamation had a due-process right under the Fifth Amendment to “be afforded [notice] within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
The per curiam opinion also suggests – and the dissenters agree – that detainees may challenge the legality of Trump’s AEA proclamation.
So, is the Supreme Court ruling the big win some in Trump world have claimed?
Like so many Roberts Court rulings, the Supreme Court didn’t issue a final definitive ruling putting to rest all the constitutional issues in the case before it.
But it did slap down chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia James Boasberg, which is a major win.
The high court determined that President Donald Trump’s administration is “likely to succeed on the merits” in its challenge to a lawsuit filed in a Washington, D.C. district court regarding the removal of five Venezuelan nationals.
“The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia,” the majority opinion stated.
“For 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 opinion continued. “The only question is which court will resolve that challenge.”
Left open to further litigation – at least with regard to the plaintiffs in this case in a federal court in Texas where they are being held – is the issue of the legality of President Trump’s proclamation applying the Enemy Aliens Act to Tren de Aragua Venezuelan gang members.
Also left open to further litigation are the basic issues of federal habeas corpus law – is there enough evidence to support the charges against those individuals who are being detained? What specific law have they allegedly broken? Does their presence in the United States trigger federal deportation law that is unappealable to the courts, etc.
However, as Mr. Whelen observed, the ruling does give the Trump administration a road map to expedite such hearings in a favorable venue by detaining deportees in districts (e.g., Southern District of Texas and Western District of Louisiana) that it expects to be deferential to it in habeas proceedings and whose rulings will be reviewed by an appellate court (the Fifth Circuit in these examples) that it regards as much friendlier than the D.C. Circuit.
Also open to further litigation is what happens to claims by illegal aliens already shipped abroad or held at Guantanamo Bay.
So, big win in the matter of activist Democrat Judge Boasberg getting slapped down for hijacking the case, lots more litigation to come to settle the core issues in the case.
Well, as the attorneys who post to X for Shipwrecked Crew explained, there were 10 Causes of Action in the Complaint. One was an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim and one was a Habeas claim.
The Plaintiffs dismissed the Habeas claim because it likely would have stripped Boasberg of jurisdiction. He entered the Temporary Restraining Orders based on their APA claim.
The SCOTUS ruling yesterday was that the APA doesn’t allow for a claim when there is a claim possible under Habeas. Since everyone agreed the Plaintiffs could have brought a Habeas claim in Texas, SCOTUS’s decision says they must bring that in Texas, not an APA claim.
But that leaves 8 other Causes of Action still in the Complaint that aren’t — so far — implicated by SCOTUS’s decision. SCOTUS didn’t order the complaint dismissed; it vacated the TROs.
The Complaint is still pending — APA is dead, and Plaintiffs dismissed Habeas. But 8 Causes of Action still need to be addressed.
Logic would seem to indicate that the claims should all be heard in Texas with the habeas corpus case, but the law isn’t always logical.
Yesterday, Boasberg postponed a previously scheduled hearing on the case and in effect said to the Plaintiffs “If you think this case can continue in this Court on the remaining 8 Causes, and if you think one of them is a basis for an Injunction, speak up now.”
If the Plaintiffs file something saying “Yes we think it can continue” then the Govt will file a Motion to Dismiss, or it might seek a change in venue to Texas. However, the Plaintiffs react – and we expect them to try to keep a suit going in Boasberg’s court – it is pretty clear that Boasberg has no intention of ceding jurisdiction or otherwise gracefully letting go of the case until he’s ordered to.
