The Washington Stand: ‘Biggest Legal Win So Far’: SCOTUS Backs Trump against Lower Courts

This article was written by S.A. McCarthy and published in The Washington Stand.

After weeks of controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court is siding with President Donald Trump against sweeping restrictions imposed by inferior courts.

The president invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 last month, using the broad authorities provided to him to quickly arrest, detain, and deport noncitizens affiliated with the foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). Within hours, however, a group of five Venezuelan nationals slated for deportation went to court and Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the president from summarily deporting TdA members and affiliates under the auspices of the AEA.

When Boasberg refused to dissolve the order, the president sought relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Two of the three judges on the circuit court upheld Boasberg’s TRO, demanding only that he amend it so as not to enjoin the president himself, only Trump administration officials and deputies. Thus, the president asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The chief argument put forth by the Trump administration was that the Venezuelan nationals who had filed a complaint against the president’s use of the AEA incorrectly did so on the grounds of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), when they should have filed a habeas corpus petition in the jurisdiction in which they were detained, in Texas.

“Most fundamentally, respondents cannot obtain relief because they brought the wrong claims in the wrong court,” wrote Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris in the Trump administration’s petition to the Supreme Court. She continued, “[B]y insisting on proceeding with APA claims in the District of Columbia — not individual habeas proceedings in the Southern District of Texas — respondents are depriving the proper forum of the chance to flesh out the scope of habeas review and to start resolving individual challenges in an orderly way.” Harris added, “By persisting with an unlawful class action, respondents also inflict accumulating harms on absent class members, who risk being estopped from pressing habeas claims by virtue of being part of this class action.”

Read More