Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call

Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call

Share this post

Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call
Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call
The Supreme Court PAUSES Removals Under Alien Enemies Act -- That's All

The Supreme Court PAUSES Removals Under Alien Enemies Act -- That's All

It's not the end of the world because only a few hundred individuals are involved -- not the millions of illegal aliens subject to regular deportation.

Shipwreckedcrew's avatar
Shipwreckedcrew
May 20, 2025
∙ Paid
38

Share this post

Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call
Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call
The Supreme Court PAUSES Removals Under Alien Enemies Act -- That's All
8
5
Share

Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

As has long been obvious, I’m not in the “pearl clutching” crowd when it comes to Supreme Court’s dealing with the lawfare tactics employed against many Executive Orders issued by the Trump Administration since January 20. Yes, liberal/progressive — and in some instances neo-Marxist — district judges have made unprecedented use of nationwide injunctions to throw sand in the gears of the Administration as it makes changes , and yes the appellate judges — including SCOTUS — have not done enough to reign-in these transparently political efforts.

Early in the evening on Friday the Supreme Court added to the score in that regard when it issued an opinion that has the effect of continuing to pause the Administration’s plan to remove Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation on March 15 that TdA members were “alien enemies” and subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

What the Court did was pause the case it was addressing — habeas petitions filed by two Venezuelans, AARP and WMM — and direct the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Court to address the issue of what “due process” is necessary prior to a removal under the AEA taking place. It said explicitly that the “process” the Government said it provided on April 18, 2025, was insufficient as a matter of law, without saying what process would have been sufficient. It directed lower courts to consider the question first — which is VERY TYPICAL for how previously unaddressed legal questions get resolved.

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 shipwreckedcrew
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share