U.S. Supreme Court lifts order barring

U.S. Supreme Court lifts order barring | Daily Tribune

WASHINGTON, United States (AFP) — The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a victory on Monday by lifting a lower court order barring the deportation of undocumented Venezuelan migrants using an obscure wartime law.

But the nation’s top court also said that migrants subject to deportation under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) must be given an opportunity to legally challenge their removal.

The 5-4 decision by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to resume deportations for now that had been blocked by a federal district court judge.

Trump invoked the AEA, which has only previously been used during wartime, to round up alleged Venezuelan gang members and summarily deport them to a notorious maximum security prison in El Salvador.

Attorneys for several of the deported Venezuelans have said that their clients were not members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, had committed no crimes and were targeted largely on the basis of their tattoos.

The Republican president, who campaigned on a pledge to expel millions of undocumented migrants, welcomed the top court’s ruling in a post on Truth Social.

“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself,” Trump said. “A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!”

District Judge James Boasberg issued temporary restraining orders barring further flights of deportees under the AEA after planeloads of Venezuelan migrants were sent to El Salvador on 15 March.

The Supreme Court lifted Boasberg’s orders but mostly on technical grounds related to venue — that the group of Venezuelan migrants who sued to prevent their removal are in Texas while the case before Boasberg was brought in Washington.

“The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia,” the justices said, leaving the door open to possible further challenges to the legality of using the AEA to be heard in lower courts.