USA rejects deportation based on the law of foreigners enemies

Critics find in an attempt to rapid deportation a threat to human rights, while Trump criticizes the court for “preventing his executive authority”

Most of the court once again upheld the decision that migrants are entitled to due process before deportation. The Supreme Court of the United States granted an emergency request from a group of migrants in Texas, preventing the use of a 18th century law, created for times of war, to accelerate their removals. The signing decision on Friday (16) is another setback for the government of President Donald Trump, who tried to use the 1798 Foreign Foreign Act to quickly deport US immigrants from the US.

Only two conservative judges disagreed: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Although the Supreme Court has not yet commented on the merits of the use of the law by Trump, it granted “precautionary measure” to Venezuelan migrants who faced expulsion under the centenary law.

“For a long time, we maintain that ‘no person should be’ removed from the United States’ without the opportunity to be heard at some point,” the majority of the court wrote in his decision.

The text reaffirmed a previous position that migrants in the US is entitled to due process of law – that is, a fair trial in the judicial system – before deportation.

This Friday’s case was presented by two unidentified migrants from Venezuela, referred to only on initials. They are detained in a center in northern Texas while waiting deportation.

The Trump administration accused them, along with other Venezuelans, of being members of the Aragua Tren gang. In addition, he tried to portray the US migration to the US as an invasion and associate the group’s activities with the Venezuelan government – a claim contested by a recently disqualified intelligence memorandum.

This justification, according to the Trump administration, would authorize the use of the enemy foreign law, which was only applied three times in US history – and only during wars.

But the application of the law by Trump generated legal reactions, with several district courts analyzing requests from migrants who feared expulsion under this legislation.

Several judges barred the use of the law for accelerated removals. However, a judge in Pennsylvania decided that the Trump government could use it-provided it properly notified the deported. She suggested a term of 21 days.

The Supreme Court did not opine this Friday about the validity of the use of the law by Trump. Instead, his 24 -page decision, including a dissident vote – focused on whether the Venezuelans in question deserved protection against imminent deportation.

Most of the nine judges pointed out that “evidence” of the case indicated that “the government actually took action on the afternoon of April 18” to invoke the law, even transporting the migrants “from the detention center to an airport, before bringing them back.”

The magistrates affirmed their right to intervene to avoid “irreparable damage” to migrants and maintain their jurisdiction. Otherwise, deportation could put them out of their reach.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh went beyond a separate vote, asking the Court to issue a final and binding decision on the case, not only granting the specific request.

“The context requires a rapid and definitive resolution, which probably only this court can provide,” he said, supporting the majority.

Thomas and Alito, in his dissident vote, argued that the Supreme Court did not give a lower court time to review the emergency request.

Trump attacks decision on social networks

After the decision, Trump criticized the majority of the court on his social Truth network, accusing her of being mild with migrants.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t let us take criminals from our country!” He wrote in the first of two consecutive posts.

In the second, he called the decision “a bad and dangerous day in America.” He complained that ensuring due process would lead to “a long, time consuming and expensive legal process that can take years to each person.”

He also stated that the court prevented him from exercising his executive authority.

“The Supreme Court is not letting me do what I was elected to do,” he wrote, predicting that prolonged deportation hearings would cause “chaos” in the US.

His government often accuses the judiciary to interfere with his agenda. Critics, however, warn that Trump’s actions – especially allegations of disrespect for court orders – corrode the US brake and counterweight system.

ACLU praises decision as victory against abuse

In a statement, the American Union for Civil Freedoms (ACLU) celebrated the decision as a barrier against human rights violations.

“The court decision to suspend deportations is a strong rejection of the government’s attempt to send people in a hurry to a Gulag prison in El Salvador,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the Aclu Immigrant Rights Project.

“Using a war authority in peacetime, without guaranteeing due process, raises questions of utmost importance.”

Currently, the Supreme Court has a conservative supermarket, with six directionist judges and three leftists. Three of them were appointed by Trump-and in this case they aligned with the majority.

Read the full decision by clicking here.

With information from Al Jazeera*