The Supreme Court decision affects the Alien Enemies Act

The Supreme Court’s ruling that deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 are canceled under the Bluebonnet facility

The high court acted in an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union contending that immigration authorities appeared to be moving to restart removals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Supreme Court had said earlier in April that deportations could proceed only if 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.

The details of counter terrorism operations will be kept quiet, and we are adhering to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The number of people who may be deported from this facility was not confirmed by NPR. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security declined to provide details or answer additional questions about the case.

This came despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found the Trump administration could continue deporting under the act — only if detainees are given due process to challenge their removal. The government says 137 migrants accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua, including a group of men sent to a prison in El Salvador, have already been deported under the Alien Enemies Act.

Gelernt said in a Friday evening hearing before District Judge James E. Boasberg in Washington, D.C., that the administration initially moved Venezuelans to its south Texas immigration facility for deportation. The judge banned deportations in that area and so it sent them to the Bluebonnet facility. He said people saw the men being loaded on buses and taken to the airport.

With Hendrix not agreeing to the ACLU’s request for an emergency order, the group turned to Boasberg, who initially halted deportations in March. The Supreme Court’s order that orders against deportation came from judges in places where immigrants are held made him powerless Friday.

“It doesn’t say you have the right to contest, you have the right to challenge anything. It’s just saying you’re getting removed and that’s all. That seems problematic to me.

At the emergency hearing Friday, justice department lawyer Ensign said department officials were not aware of any planned deportation flights on Friday and there are no deportation plans for Saturday, but the government “reserves the right to remove people on Saturday.”

Immigration Law in the U.S. Supreme Court Revisited in Light of a High-Call-Tue High-Energy Decision by Judge Boasberg

“I’m sympathetic to everything you are saying, I just don’t think I have the power,” judge Boasburg told the ACLU attorney, and said that it is now in the Supreme Court’s hands.

Boasberg earlier this week found probable cause that the Trump administration committed criminal contempt by disobeying his ruling, only to see the Supreme Court rule that only judges where migrants are being held have jurisdiction to halt their removal.

Following the unanimous high court order on April 9, federal judges in Colorado, New York and southern Texas promptly issued orders barring removal of detainees under the AEA until the administration provides a process for them to make claims in court.

During World War II the act was used to hold Japanese-Americans in internment camps. The Trump administration contended it gave them power to swiftly remove immigrants they identified as members of the gang, regardless of their immigration status.

Bluebonnet is located in the far northern part of Texas and there has been no such order issued there.

The affidavits from three immigration lawyers stated their clients in Bluebonnet were given paperwork indicating they were members of the rebel group and could be deported by Saturday. Karene Brown said her client was told to sign papers in English because he only spoke Spanish.

Also Friday, a Massachusetts judge made permanent his temporary ban on the administration deporting immigrants who have exhausted their appeals to countries other than their home countries unless they are informed of their destination and given a chance to object if they’d face torture or death there.