SCOTUS halts deportation of Tren de Aragua detainees

Two Venezuelan nationals held in U.S. detention centers as alleged members of the designated foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua are entitled to further injunctive relief prohibiting their summary removal from the U.S. by the Trump administration pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a decision from the 5th Circuit that upheld the denial of the detainees’ petition for a temporary restraining order pending appeal. Click here to read the full text of the May 16 decision in A.A.R.P. v. Trump.

• “In [Trump v. J.G.G. decided April 7], this Court explained — with all nine Justices agreeing — that ‘AEA detainees must receive notice … that they are subject to removal under the Act … within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief’ before removal. In order to ‘actually seek habeas relief,’ a detainee must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief.

  “The Government does not contest before this Court the applicants’ description of the notice afforded to AEA detainees in the Northern District of Texas, nor the assertion that the Government was poised to carry out removals imminently. The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador … where it is alleged that detainees face indefinite detention. The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty. Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster. But it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. We remand the case to the Fifth Circuit for that purpose.

  “To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than [the one-day notice that] was given on April 18, and we grant temporary injunctive relief to preserve our jurisdiction while the question of what notice is due is adjudicated. We did not [in an April 19 order prohibiting summary removal of the detainees] — and do not now — address the underlying merits of the parties’ claims regarding the legality of removals under the AEA. We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously.”

  — per curiam opinion

• “The Executive Branch has represented that this case is important for America’s national security and that it is ‘critical to remove TdA members subject to the Proclamation [designating TdA a foreign terrorist organization] quickly.’ For their part, the detainees have explicitly requested that the Court move fast and grant certiorari before judgment.

  “The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court. At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather, consistent with the Executive Branch’s request for expedition — and as the detainees themselves urge — I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.”

  — Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, concurring

• “Instead of merely ruling on the application that is before us — which asks for emergency relief pending appeal — the Court takes the unusual step of granting certiorari before judgment, summarily vacating the judgment below dismissing the applicants’ appeal, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals with directions regarding the issues that court should address. From the Court’s order, it is not entirely clear whether the Court has silently decided issues that go beyond the question of interim relief. (I certainly hope that it has not.) But if it has done so, today’s order is doubly extraordinary. Granting certiorari before a court of appeals has entered a judgment is a sharp departure from usual practice, but here neither the Court of Appeals nor the District Court has decided any merits questions.”
  
  — Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting