Source: nytimes.com
Image content: This is a text document styled like a U.S. Supreme Court opinion page. It shows a dissent by Justice Alito (joined by Justice Thomas) in case No. 24A1007, A.A.R.P., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., dated April 19, 2025, discussing an emergency injunction and issues around a “putative class” of detainees.
Summary
The Supreme Court issued an emergency, late-night order temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s rapid deportations of Venezuelan detainees under the Alien Enemies Act amid concerns over due process, advance notice, and access to courts. Civil rights advocates argued the operation sought to evade judicial review through procedural maneuvers and inadequate notice, while the administration defended the removals as lawful and necessary for public safety. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, criticizing the Court’s intervention as premature, procedurally irregular, and lacking jurisdiction, and faulting the grant of broad relief without class certification. The dispute highlights escalating legal and procedural battles over emergency immigration actions and the Court’s role in supervising them.
Key Points
- Supreme Court temporarily halted deportations of Venezuelan detainees under the Alien Enemies Act.
- Advocates allege due process violations, inadequate notice, and efforts to evade judicial review.
- Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, calling the order premature and jurisdictionally flawed.
- Government defends removals as lawful public safety measures amid contested factual record.
- Case underscores growing reliance on emergency relief and procedural complexity in immigration enforcement.