United States Supreme Court determine Samuel Alito, who was on the nine-judge chair which temporarily blocked US President Donald Trump’s administration from deporting a group of Venezuelans detained in Texas, mentioned in his sharply-worded protest note that the court acted “literally in the middle of the night ” and “without sufficient reason. “
Also Read: Ann Coulter openly asks Donald Trump to defy court order, says Supreme Court was not elected president
Justice Alito, one of the two magistrates who dissented, the other being Justice Clarence Thomas, said there was “dubious scientific help ” for granting the request in an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The team had contended immigration officials appeared to be moving to resume such removals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
In the dissent note, released days after the court’s action against the Trump administration, Alito wrote,” It is not apparent whether the Supreme Court had authority at this stage of the case, as not all legal routes have been played out in lower courts and the magistrates had not had the chance to hear the government’s area. “
He added,” The only papers before this court were those submitted by the applicants. The court had never ordered or received a response by the government regarding either the candidates ’ scientific claims or any of the legal problems presented by the program. And the jury did not have the advantage of a federal answer filed in any of the lower courts either. “
The liberal prosecutor was also of the mind that while the applicants claimed to be in “imminent risk” of treatment, they provided “little material support” to help their allegation. He also noted that while the Supreme Court did not hear directly from the federal government regarding any planned arrests under the Alien Enemies Act in this case, a federal prosecutor in a different issue had told a US district judge in a reading on Friday no such arrests were therefore planned for either Friday or Saturday.
Alito’s note read,” In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refuse to join the order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the Executive and the judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. “
In their Saturday order, the seven judges who blocked deportations, did not provide a detailed explanation. However, the court had previously said the exercise could proceed only after those about to be removed had a chance to argue their case in court and were given “a reasonable time ” to contest their pending removals.
Their brief order directed the Trump administration not to remove the Venezuelans held in north Texas ‘ Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court. ”
The ACLU had already sued to block deportations of two Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet facility and sought an order barring removals of any immigrants in the region under the Alien Enemies Act, which has only been invoked three previous times in US history, most recently during World War II.
In the emergency filing, the ACLU warned immigration authorities were accusing other Venezuelan men held at the facility of being members of the” Tren de Aragua” gang, which would make them subject to Trump’s use of the 18th century law.
