Two Court Rulings on Donald Trump’s Deportations
24:33 Share

Viking, committed to exploring the world in comfort. Journey through the heart of Europe on an elegant Viking longship with thoughtful service, cultural enrichment, and all-inclusive fares. Discover more at viking.com. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

Two big rulings on President Trump's deportation efforts. One from the Supreme Court ending a halt on the administration's actions under the Alien Enemies Act. And another that's going to the justices next,

ordering the White House to seek the return of a migrant unlawfully sent to a prison in El Salvador. Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with The Wall Street Journal. We're joined today by my colleagues, columnists Alicia Finley and Kim Strassel. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday to dissolve restraining orders issued by a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,

that had blocked the removal of migrants from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This is President Trump this morning 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. A great day for justice in America.

And here is Attorney General Pam Bondi on Fox & Friends this morning. This is a landmark victory for the rule of law. And this is what we've been arguing on behalf of President Trump from day one. These are enemies of our state, of our country, and they should be deported. And what the judge ruled was...

was going forward from this day forward all those planes that are gone are there those people are staying so there are a lot of reasons why americans are safer from this point forward the hearing will be held it's a habeas hearing in the court of confinement which means in texas so it will be a much faster hearing they can't do class actions it will it will be a much smoother simpler hearing and these people will be deported americans are safer and

domestic terrorists, foreign terrorists, you better look out because we're coming after you. Alicia, to start at the beginning, what is the Alien Enemies Act and how is President Trump trying to use it? And then what's your view of this decision by the Supreme Court? So the Alien Enemies Act was enacted in 1798 around the time of the founding when there was a lot of conflict actually between the British and French and then the Federalists passed this law intended to make it

easier to deport French people or French citizens who may have been hostile or considered hostile agents of the government. Now, what this act grants is the power to detain and remove foreign citizens of a hostile nation or government when there is a declared war or when that nation threatens invasion or predatory incursion against the U.S.,

Now, what President Trump did last month was declare his Venezuelan gang, TDA, to essentially be an arm of the Venezuelan government. And he said that TDA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States, both directly and at the direction of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.

And he said that therefore, because of that, that allows the government to deport anyone with a TDA association under this law, which at least at that time they argued would expedite the removals of these Venezuelan migrants and they were sending them to El Salvador to a prison. But now what happened with this latest ruling in

The court essentially declared that all these migrants or Venezuelan immigrants who are, by the way, non-citizens or permanent residents, that they also have a habeas corpus right to seek their release or prevent their deportation under this law. So there actually is some due process involved. And the court said that you can't just summarily deport these people under law. You still have to provide them a notification why they are being detained and an opportunity to challenge their detention. Right.

Kim, my read of this opinion, this 5-4 ruling, it's a per curiam by the court, so we don't know specifically who wrote it, is it's more limited than President Trump was suggesting in that Truth Social post. Here's a couple lines from it. It says that these migrants challenged the government's interpretation of the act and

and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies, but we do not reach those arguments. Essentially, the court is deciding the proper venue for those arguments. As I read it, they go on to say that removal orders under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge.

So, Kim, my read of this is it is pretty limited. These lawsuits in the D.C. federal courts are now over, and these lawsuits are now going to go into the individual districts wherever these migrants happen to be held. But it essentially restarts the litigation, as I understand it.

Yeah, let's be very clear. This was not a ruling on the merits of this case. It was a ruling on some procedures and basic principles, in particular about where things should be heard and under what kind of claim. And in that regard, it was the Supreme Court correct.

Thank you.

I see this as mainly the Supreme Court sending a kind of big message to lower courts in general and also to plaintiffs who are engaging in a bit of forum shopping these days, trying to find a court where they're going to get something heard that isn't necessarily the proper way. Remember, this had become quite commonplace.

a big piece of drama, Judge James Boasberg, who has been the target of Trump criticism and administration criticism. He'd issued a number of rulings, which I think you could arguably say were somewhat overreaching in their regard. He had temporarily blocked the administration from using this act at all, not just with regard to these detainees, but anyone else

that the administration was suggesting that they were going to deport under this particular proclamation and the use of this law. He was also suggesting he might hold a case and hold officials for probable cause of having engaged in contempt for allowing the flights to take these people down to El Salvador to even continue. The Supreme Court has basically said,

whoa, whoa, whoa, you don't necessarily get to go that far. And also, this needs to be heard by a different venue. And that, by the way, is notable because there is an argument that the litigants in this case were choosing to go to the D.C. Circuit Court because they thought they'd get a different hearing than what they would get if they filed under habeas. Habeas requires you to file in the jurisdiction where people are being confined. And so, they looked

to be actively avoiding that. I think the other thing that's really important here, which isn't getting as much attention, and to your point, Kyle, is that the other correction the Supreme Court issued here and clarification is, yes, anyone under this law is entitled to judicial review. And going forward, if the government is intending to deport you, you must be notified and have the opportunity to have a court review that decision. And so,

It's mostly process and procedure. It's not on the merits. And we will see where those courts ends up. Hang tight. We'll be right back. Carla only has the best tech. Can't connect to network. But she didn't have the best internet. So she got Cox Multigig Spades to power all her... Now all her tech is... Connected.

Welcome back. Future litigation, I suppose, could be on the basis of the specific case of someone in the United States who's a migrant saying, I'm not part of this gang. It could be on the facts of that individual. But I suppose, Alicia, it also could be

on the more broad claims that this law is not being properly used. And to repeat that section of it, it says the Alien Enemies Act is available whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government.

unquote. And so, Alicia, obviously, there is not a declared war between the United States and Venezuela. So I guess the legal question would be whether the activities of Venezuelan gang in the United States can be considered to be perpetrated or threatened by the foreign nation, the foreign government of Venezuela.

Right, and I think the Trump administration's argument is a bit of a legal stretch here. And to your point, this will eventually go up to the Supreme Court in due course once a district court or some district court rules on these habeas petitions. They'll probably be appealed by one or the other party, and eventually the Supreme Court will be allowed to decide the decision. This is kind of, to Kim's point, kind of keeping with the conservative argument

Majorities believe that we need to follow proper procedure and let the arguments, legal arguments, percolate in the lower district courts rather than providing summary decisions based on in one particular district court. And here was D.C. I think one of the problems is there has actually been judicial form shopping by the liberal courts.

plaintiffs, which is ironic because Justice Sotomayor and the liberals accused their dissent, accused the government of form shopping by putting these people in Texas where many of their habeas petitions would presumably be heard. But it's just the opposite. You had the liberal plaintiffs representing these migrants and some of them are sympathetic cases, just to highlight in one of the cases.

A guy was apparently detained because he had a tattoo that the government construed as being a symbol of the gang, but he denied any kind of affiliation. Another one said that he was caught or he went to a friend's party and the government said, well, because you went to that party, then you were a gang member. So just wanted to say that there are many cases here that the administration could lose on the grounds that, well, these people aren't actually part of the gangs anyways.

But the broader point is that the lower courts need to respect proper procedure. And so the high court, I imagine, will eventually decide whether the Trump administration's proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act is constitutional or legal.

But we need to let these cases percolate in the lower courts when they hear the legal arguments first. That point about due process, I think, is important. And to pick up where Alicia left off about tattoos and so forth, that brings us to the second ruling that we're going to talk about today by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This involves a man named Kilmar Armando Abrego-Garcia.

who the administration now says was inadvertently deported and is now in a prison in El Salvador. Late last week, a district judge ordered the administration to facilitate or to try to facilitate his return to the United States. That lower judge said this, the evidence against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and

And so, Kim, the details here, my understanding is that Borrego Garcia is a Salvadoran national, was in the country illegally, but there was a court ruling in 2019 that said he could not be sent back there because of what the judge in that other case said.

that 2019 case said was threats against him by Salvadoran gangs, I believe. Kim, what do you make of this ruling, a unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit upholding the order for the Trump administration to try to get him back, although notable now the Supreme Court has put a stay on that? And I guess this will be coming up next to the justices on the emergency docket. Well,

Well, the Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has issued a very temporary pause. The administration was under an order to bring him back by midnight tonight. That's been extended briefly to give parties time to respond. Again, I think this was the justice saying you're moving a bit

precipitously here. There needs to be a little bit more information before we go out. This is one of the problems with these cases, too, is that we're still getting more information about this particular individual. There is, as you note, evidence as provided by the court, the judge overhearing this case, and also by a Trump administration official who, in writing, said that this was done accidentally.

On the other hand, now the administration has put that person on temporary leave and is suggesting that, in fact, there is other evidence that would uphold this. We have also that whole prior court record from 2019. I still think there's a lot to come out here, but what is not in question is that...

This individual was sent out and it brings up the question again of judicial review and whether or not the administration is acting a bit precipitously. If it has slam dunk cases in these situations, then it should have no problem going in front of a court and

arguing that it has all the grounds it needs to deport someone and making that case even if necessary on an individual by individual basis. That is a hallmark of the American system, including our habeas petitions that we have to make sure that people do get due process. And

And, you know, I would wager this might also ultimately land in front of the Supreme Court on the question of the merits, although the court seems likely to let it play out at the lower level again, too. This is, I think, a little bit flummoxing to people like me watching the administration because, again, if they have the goods that they need, this is a Supreme Court that, if anything, has been extremely deferential to presidential power when it comes to national security and immigration law.

And so, again, if the administration has what it needs, it shouldn't have any problem going in front of a court and allowing that judicial review to play out. Hang tight. We'll be right back after one more break.

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. It's tax season, and we're all a bit tired of numbers. But here's one you need to hear. $16.5 billion. That's how much the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud last year. Now here's a good number. $100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it. Guaranteed. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.

Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker. Play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast. From the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

Welcome back. I take Kim's point that maybe there is more information that will come out in this case about this guy who's now in El Salvador. But Alicia is hardly confidence building the lack of information coming out of the administration here. The fact that the lawyer for the Justice Department who made this admission that it was an inadvertent deportation has now been put on leave.

And it's not only a legal problem, I think, in front of these kinds of courts as these cases work their way up the appellate chain. I think it's also a huge political problem for the Trump administration and the White House. The perception is

in a couple of the cases that we've talked about today and also others allegations that migrants are getting swept up in these deportation efforts on the basis of tattoos that are misunderstood or mean something not what the administration is claiming it suggests a motivation to move swiftly and maybe more swiftly than is sometimes warranted i think that if some of these

people who have been deported get vindicated if this guy gets out of the Salvadoran prison. And it turns out the Trump administration did mistakenly send him there. I think that is going to be something that many voters in the center and even on the right will have a problem with. Right. So two things here. I think the political support for deporting people who are members of gangs, there's a lot of support for that.

But when you have these kind of stories where the administration acted, to take Kim's point, kind of hastily and probably recklessly in deporting someone without providing any due process and innocent people who get caught up, that's going to increase the public sympathies for

many of these plaintiffs who are bringing the cases and will undermine the broader support for the Trump administration's agenda. And you saw that happen, play out during his first term. All of a sudden, you know, the family separations and so public support for the administration's border agenda declined as a result of that.

There's just also a broader issue of how the administration is just going about a lot of what it's doing. And this is including with some of the firings and where they're firing people, the FDA or some of these agencies that do important things, and then they are having to rehire them. They aren't showing a lot of discretion when they're doing things.

And this feeds into an overall impression that the administration isn't being cautious or careful in what they're doing. I mean, you could just look at the tariffs, the blunderbuss tariffs on foreign countries. And I think that's going to undermine Americans' approval of Trump, even where they support his overall goals. They don't like how he's going about it. They think it's kind of chaotic and not thoughtful enough.

And then recall, this was an issue with the Biden administration is that, you know, there was an impression of chaos. And now that's becoming a similar issue with the Trump administration. And that's going to pose political problems for Republicans in Congress who are up for reelection next November.

So I just want to underline that President Trump does not want to be dealing with a Democratic Congress come 2027. I think you're going to have all kinds of investigations and such over all these exact policies and decisions that are now being litigated. So it really behooves the administration to make sure they dot all their I's, cross all their T's.

And some of that chaos is reversible easily enough to take up the point about the firings, the Trump administration inadvertently, apparently under this Doge effort, let go some people working on maintenance of America's nuclear weapons and then quickly call them back.

But it's something else entirely when you, I think, deport somebody from the United States. And then when the courts get involved, you take the legal position that you are not the president of El Salvador. So once he's gone, you have no ability to get that person back.

On the other hand, I think there are real concerns here about judges wading in and ordering the president in the realm of foreign policy to take a certain negotiating position or make a request of another country. Kim, we'll give you the last word, but it will be fascinating to see how the justices resolve this one if they do take up this Fourth Circuit ruling after the stay that was recently issued.

Yeah, it's really hard to say. I mean, right now, I think the Supreme Court is very much focused on the point you just made. And what I was trying to say earlier is...

I think that each of these opinions matters with regard to the Supreme Court setting lower courts back on the right track in terms of process and procedure and the claims that are being pursued. But I think there is a broader point being made here by the Supreme Court, which is everybody needs to cool it off.

OK, like plaintiffs who are running around purposely forum shopping, trying to get the judges that you want and filing under things. It's obvious that you should have filed under a different kind of claim. I mean, notably, the Supreme Court decision in this one dealing with the Alien Enemies Act pointed out that the litigants originally did file habeas claims and withdrew them.

probably because they wanted to go to Washington, D.C. and file under this Administrative Procedures Act. That's a forum shopping issue. But also, cool it to all of you judges that are issuing these national injunctions telling the executive branch that you can't do this or that before

you've really had any hearings on the merits or gotten anywhere on this. And so we've had a Supreme Court decisions. Similarly, they're per curiam unsigned opinions, but telling judges, no, you don't get to do that. And when it comes to this grant question, we just had another one today about firings of employees, probationary employees, overturning a lower court

on that. So the Supreme Court seems to be saying we all need to take a step back and have a deep breath and follow the rules here. And the merits will come when the merits come. Thank you, Kim and Alicia. Thank you all for listening. You can email us at pwpodcast at wsj.com. If you like the show, please hit that subscribe button. And we'll be back tomorrow with another edition of Potomac Watch.