Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Review Over Immigration Law Blockade

3 Min Read
Prison guards transfer deportees from the U.S., alleged to be Venezuelan gang members, to the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on Sunday, March 16. (El Salvador presidential press office via AP)

The Trump administration formally requested Supreme Court intervention on Friday, seeking to overturn a restraining order that temporarily halts its use of an 18th-century wartime immigration law to deport Venezuelan nationals such as alleged members of the criminal gang Tren de Aragua.

The administration is attempting to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a law originally enacted for wartime use, to immediately deport the Venezuelan migrants. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 on Wednesday to uphold a lower court’s decision that temporarily blocked the administration’s application of the law. The ruling instituted a 14-day pause, allowing the lower court time to examine the case’s legal merits.

In response, U.S. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris criticized the lower court’s rulings in a Supreme Court filing, arguing that the orders obstruct the administration’s efforts to protect national security and could have far-reaching consequences for U.S. foreign relations. Harris warned of “serious and perhaps irreparable harm” if the Supreme Court does not review the case immediately.

Specifically, the Trump administration is urging the Supreme Court to at least grant an administrative stay, which would permit the continued use of the Alien Enemies Act while the justices consider the case. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced this urgency, describing the lower court’s intervention as an “unauthorized infringement” on the president’s authority. “The administration will act swiftly to seek Supreme Court review to vindicate the president’s authority, defend the Constitution, and Make America Safe Again.”

The appeals court’s majority opinion, delivered by Judges Karen Henderson, a Bush appointee, and Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, pointed to due process concerns. The judges argued that allowing the Trump administration to proceed with immediate deportations could result in plaintiffs being forcibly sent to a country that is not their nation of origin, reports Fox News.

Judge Henderson emphasized that the temporary restraining orders (TROs) serve a “quintessentially valid purpose: to protect [the court’s] remedial authority long enough to consider the parties’ arguments.” Similarly, Judge Millett warned that reversing the lower court’s order could “moot the Plaintiffs’ claims by immediately removing them beyond the reach of their lawyers or the court.”

In the Supreme Court filing, the Trump administration expressed frustration with what it views as a growing trend of judicial overreach. Harris argued that the increasing use of TROs and injunctions against executive orders has reached a crisis point, endangering the federal government’s basic functions. “The Executive Branch’s basic functions are in peril,” she wrote, noting that in just two months since Inauguration Day, district courts have issued over 40 injunctions or TROs against the administration.

 

3 Comments

This will close in 20 seconds