By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is touting a Supreme Court ruling allowing it to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act as a major victory, but the immigration fight is far from over.
The divided court found that President Donald Trump can use the 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador, a finding Trump called a “GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” in a social media post.
But the justices also decided people accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang have to get a chance to challenge their removals — a finding their lawyers called an “important victory.”
The legal landscape could be more challenging, though, since it appears the people being held will have to file individually and in the district where they are detained. For many, that’s in Texas.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also weighing another case against a Maryland man deported by mistake that could shed light on the fate of more than 100 men accused of being gang members who have already been sent to prison in El Salvador.
Here’s a look at what’s next:
The ruling doesn’t let the deportations under the law resume right away
The Supreme Court’s ruling lifted a restraining order from a judge in the nation’s capital that had blocked the Trump administration from deporting people under the law.
But it doesn’t allow those deportations to start right away. The court said that the accused have to be given notice and reasonable time to try and convince a judge that they shouldn’t be deported.
The families of multiple people who have already been deported under the Alien Enemies Act say they are not gang members, and should not have been deported under the law.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Fox News that she expected future hearings to be held in Texas, and for judges to deal with each case individually rather than issue orders about the group as a whole.
“It will be a much smoother, simpler hearing,” she said.
Texas may not be the only venue, though. The American Civil Liberties Union sued Tuesday on behalf of two immigrants who are currently held in New York and say they have been wrongly labeled as Tren de Aragua gang members, putting them at risk of deportation to the prison.
Many questions about Trump’s use of the act remain unresolved
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not address the constitutionality of the act or the migrants’ claim that they don’t fall within the category of people who can be deported under the law.
It’s also not clear how this ruling affects the more than 100 people who have already been sent to the El Salvador prison under the Alien Enemies Act without being given an opportunity to challenge their removals before the flights, which the court now says is necessary. The ruling didn’t address what kind of recourse, if any, those migrants may be entitled to.
In another case involving a man mistakenly deported to the El Salvador prison, the administration has said it has no way to get him back. That man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was not deported under the Alien Enemies Act, but the administration has conceded that he shouldn’t have been sent to El Salvador because an immigration judge found he likely would face persecution by local gangs.
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed Monday to pause a deadline for the Trump administration to bring Garcia back to the U.S.
The case has become a flashpoint in Trump’s fight with the courts
Even before the Supreme Court’s ruling, the case had become one of the most contentious legal battles waged by the administration over Trump’s sweeping executive actions. Trump has called for the judge’s impeachment, prompting a rare statement from Roberts to say that such action is not the appropriate response to disagreements over court rulings.
Boasberg has been contemplating whether to hold any administration officials in contempt of court for ignoring his orders last month to turn around planes that were carrying the deportees to El Salvador.
Boasberg had been expected to rule as early as this week on whether there are grounds to find anyone in contempt. During a hearing last week, he said the Trump administration may have “acted in bad faith” by trying to rush the migrants out of the country before a court could step in to block the deportations.
It’s not clear whether Boasberg would move forward with contempt proceedings after the Supreme Court’s ruling vacating his order.
A Justice Department lawyer told the judge Monday evening that the Supreme Court’s decision “eliminates the basis” for any further action. The Justice Department has said the administration didn’t violate the judge’s order, arguing it didn’t apply to planes that had already left U.S. airspace by the time his command came down.
Associated Press writer Cedar Attanasio in New York City contributed to this story.
Originally Published:
