Tonight in Your Rights: SCOTUS Answers Immigrants' S.O.S.
The Supreme Court hands Trump a 7-2 rout, and a federal judge skewers secrecy claims in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case.
This remarkable photograph from Getty Images shows detainees standing inside the courtyard of the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas, forming the letters “S.O.S.” with their bodies and holding a banner with an urgent message in Spanish.
“Help,” the message begins. “We want to be deported to [Venezuela]. We are not terrorists. S.O.S."
The men in the photograph appear to be fighting the Trump administration’s attempt to whisk them to a dangerous terrorism prison in El Salvador, a country that they are not from. They aren’t asking to stay in the United States: They want to be sent to what appears to be their country of origin.
This afternoon, the Supreme Court appears to have answered their distress signal.
In a 7-2 rout, the justices prohibited Donald Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to send the men out of the country — at least until the Supreme Court can hear their case on the merits.
It is unclear whether any of the men in the photo are the named, anonymous plaintiffs “A.A.R.P.” or “W.M.M.,” but the photograph would suggest that they are clearly part of the class benefiting from the Supreme Court’s ruling. That is to say, they are “similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas.”
Their attorney Lee Gelernt, from the American Civil Liberties Union, did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.
Rights erode in silence. Our paid readers get the full context — help keep the spotlight where it belongs with news that empowers you with options to act!
Trump quickly lied about the ruling on social media.
The Supreme Court majority explicitly wrote: “The Government may remove the named plaintiffs or putative class members under other lawful authorities,” meaning that the Trump administration could use the legal process to achieve that objective.
But the court reiterated to the Trump administration that due process is not optional.
“We have long held that ‘no person shall be’ removed from the United States ‘without opportunity, at some time, to be heard,’” the opinion states. “Due process requires notice that is ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties’ and that ‘afford[s] a reasonable time . . . to make [an] appearance.’”
All of the justices, the opinion notes, agree on that much.
“Accordingly, in J. G. G., this Court explained — with all nine Justices agreeing — that ‘[Alien Enemies Act] 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,” the opinion continues.
Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted any dissent, and they disagreed on other grounds than due process, including on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it will hear the merits of the case upon its return.
Trump’s “state secrets” claim flounders
Over in the District of Maryland, a federal judge called the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold information under the state secrets privilege “inadequate.”
“There’s simply no details," U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis reportedly said in court today. "This is basically ‘take my word for it.’”
The Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing information she ordered prosecutors to produce about the Trump administration’s compliance with the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
According to NBC News, Xinis indicated that she would issue a ruling on the matter.