Your summary of the Supreme Court decision is very Trumpian. Every report about it I have read has been along the lines below:
“The big reason is that the court appears to have decided — and unanimously so — that these migrants are entitled to judicial review, which the administration did not give them. The court said the detainees “must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act.” It further stated that this notice “must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek” relief. “The only question is which court will resolve that challenge,” the court’s opinion states. In other words, the court didn’t affirm the administration’s actual use of the Alien Enemies Act; it instead said these cases were brought in the wrong jurisdiction. And then it made a point — even though it didn’t have to — to say that these people were entitled to due process. “The Court’s ruling today means that those deportations [last month] violated the Due Process Clause’s most fundamental protections,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a dissent. That would seem to raise the prospect that these cases could be brought in other venues and the administration could lose.”
Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurring opinion in which he emphasized that “the Court’s disagreement is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers—all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review is available. The only question,” he concluded “is where that judicial review should occur.”
Sotomayor called the court’s conclusions “suspect.” She wrote that the removal of noncitizens to the prison in El Salvador “presented a risk of extraordinary harm to these” plaintiffs. Referring to the case (also pending at the Supreme Court) of a Maryland man whom the government admits was sent to El Salvador as a result of an administrative error, she observed that the government has contended that “even when it makes a mistake, it cannot retrieve individuals from” the prison in El Salvador.
“The implications of the Government’s position,” Sotomayor stressed, “is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.”
Sotomayor concluded by calling the majority’s decision on Monday “indefensible.” “We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she wrote.
In her separate dissent, Jackson explained that she agreed with Sotomayor but also wrote a separate dissent in which she questioned the majority’s decision to step into the dispute now, immediately before Boasberg had scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
Jackson criticized the majority for addressing these issues on their emergency docket and reaching a “rushed conclusion.” Normally, she said, when the justices weigh in on “complex and monumental issues,” they give the lower courts an opportunity to “address those matters first.” Then, she continued, the court “receives full briefing, hears oral argument, deliberates internally, and, finally, issues a reasoned opinion.” When the court departs from that normal practice, she said, “the risk of error always substantially increases” and it does so without “a record so posterity [may] see how it went wrong.”
What your post says is “They declared that people—immigrants, protestors, dissenters—can be deported without due process.
No hearing. No justice. No recourse.” Perhaps a lot hangs on your use of ‘can’. If you mean “it can happen because the government will just do it” there is a lot to that v “it can happen, becuase it is legal and reasonable to do so” all the other summaries I read state that this is not the meaning.
Clearly those wanting to help people will need to act fast and in the relevant local jurisdiction.
Perhaps all other commentaries read the way they do because the continue to cling to the expectation of a corrupted Supreme Court to continue to abide by the rule of Law in the same way as has been the historical norm, when in fact the historic norms do not seem to apply to the far-right heavy leaning conservatives among whom sits at least one, or in all likelihood two Christian nationalists who are more than willing to rely on technicalities to help stage and set-up the legalese that will be needed to shift away from the established Constitutional civil rights and norms.
This is how the Nazi Party during the 1930s slowly, as has been the case with American Court rulings, over into a framework that supports and supplants America's historic objectivity and reliance on civil rights as the backbone of the Constitution.
In any event how exactly does your nit-picking help this situation?
Thank you very much for sharing our movement and we are sharing this article right now. Very proud to be working together
Thank you and may our common objectives, goals, and efforts continue to bear the fruits of peace, security, and stability.
🙏
Firebrand Here! Keep up the good work! Consider checking out what we over here at the Firebrand Project are all about!
I see it, too. Too many people, far too many people, don't.
Your summary of the Supreme Court decision is very Trumpian. Every report about it I have read has been along the lines below:
“The big reason is that the court appears to have decided — and unanimously so — that these migrants are entitled to judicial review, which the administration did not give them. The court said the detainees “must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act.” It further stated that this notice “must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek” relief. “The only question is which court will resolve that challenge,” the court’s opinion states. In other words, the court didn’t affirm the administration’s actual use of the Alien Enemies Act; it instead said these cases were brought in the wrong jurisdiction. And then it made a point — even though it didn’t have to — to say that these people were entitled to due process. “The Court’s ruling today means that those deportations [last month] violated the Due Process Clause’s most fundamental protections,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a dissent. That would seem to raise the prospect that these cases could be brought in other venues and the administration could lose.”
Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurring opinion in which he emphasized that “the Court’s disagreement is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers—all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review is available. The only question,” he concluded “is where that judicial review should occur.”
Sotomayor called the court’s conclusions “suspect.” She wrote that the removal of noncitizens to the prison in El Salvador “presented a risk of extraordinary harm to these” plaintiffs. Referring to the case (also pending at the Supreme Court) of a Maryland man whom the government admits was sent to El Salvador as a result of an administrative error, she observed that the government has contended that “even when it makes a mistake, it cannot retrieve individuals from” the prison in El Salvador.
“The implications of the Government’s position,” Sotomayor stressed, “is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.”
Sotomayor concluded by calling the majority’s decision on Monday “indefensible.” “We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she wrote.
In her separate dissent, Jackson explained that she agreed with Sotomayor but also wrote a separate dissent in which she questioned the majority’s decision to step into the dispute now, immediately before Boasberg had scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
Jackson criticized the majority for addressing these issues on their emergency docket and reaching a “rushed conclusion.” Normally, she said, when the justices weigh in on “complex and monumental issues,” they give the lower courts an opportunity to “address those matters first.” Then, she continued, the court “receives full briefing, hears oral argument, deliberates internally, and, finally, issues a reasoned opinion.” When the court departs from that normal practice, she said, “the risk of error always substantially increases” and it does so without “a record so posterity [may] see how it went wrong.”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas/
What your post says is “They declared that people—immigrants, protestors, dissenters—can be deported without due process.
No hearing. No justice. No recourse.” Perhaps a lot hangs on your use of ‘can’. If you mean “it can happen because the government will just do it” there is a lot to that v “it can happen, becuase it is legal and reasonable to do so” all the other summaries I read state that this is not the meaning.
Clearly those wanting to help people will need to act fast and in the relevant local jurisdiction.
Perhaps all other commentaries read the way they do because the continue to cling to the expectation of a corrupted Supreme Court to continue to abide by the rule of Law in the same way as has been the historical norm, when in fact the historic norms do not seem to apply to the far-right heavy leaning conservatives among whom sits at least one, or in all likelihood two Christian nationalists who are more than willing to rely on technicalities to help stage and set-up the legalese that will be needed to shift away from the established Constitutional civil rights and norms.
This is how the Nazi Party during the 1930s slowly, as has been the case with American Court rulings, over into a framework that supports and supplants America's historic objectivity and reliance on civil rights as the backbone of the Constitution.
In any event how exactly does your nit-picking help this situation?