Trump’s Claim and the Supreme Court Ruling: Conflict Between the Executive and Judiciary, By Chris Knight (Florida)

On April 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to lift a lower court's blanket block on deportations under Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798, allowing the administration to target alleged Venezuelan gang members (e.g., Tren de Aragua) for rapid removal. However, the court unanimously required that detainees receive notice and a "reasonable time" to seek habeas corpus relief to challenge their deportation, affirming due process rights. Trump, on April 21, 2025, criticised this on Truth Social, arguing that providing trials for "hundreds of thousands" of deportees would take "200 years" and is a deliberate Left-wing strategy to paralyse his agenda through "lawfare." He claimed Biden let in "millions of criminals" unchecked, while he's forced into lengthy legal processes.

The dissenting opinions, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and (partially) Amy Coney Barrett, slammed the majority for undermining the rule of law. Sotomayor called the government's conduct an "extraordinary threat," arguing that requiring individual habeas claims in detention districts (e.g., Texas) risks "severe and irreparable harm" due to rushed deportations and lack of legal access. Jackson criticised the court's reliance on the "shadow docket" for rushed, under-briefed rulings.

Trump's claims highlights a deep tension: the executive branch's push for swift immigration enforcement versus the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional protections. The AEA, historically used during wartime (e.g., WWII internment of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals), allows the president to detain or deport foreign nationals from hostile nations. Trump's novel use of it in peacetime against a non-state actor (Tren de Aragua) sparked legal challenges, with critics like the ACLU arguing it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which mandates procedural rights like asylum hearings.

The conflict escalated when Trump's administration defied lower court orders. For example, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered deportation flights stopped on March 15, 2025, but two planes carrying 238 Venezuelans landed in El Salvador's "Terrorism Confinement Center" (CECOT). The administration claimed compliance with written orders, but Boasberg's 46-page opinion found probable cause for criminal contempt, citing deliberate flouting. Similarly, in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran wrongly deported despite a protective order, the administration ignored a Supreme Court directive to facilitate his return, prompting Judge Paula Xinis to order depositions.

Trump's team, led by figures like Stephen Miller, frames courts as obstacles to executive power, arguing the president has near-unfettered authority over national security and foreign policy. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that lower courts shouldn't encroach on "sensitive national-security-related operations." Trump himself has attacked judges like Boasberg, calling for his impeachment and labelling him a "Radical Left Lunatic." This echoes his broader view, per April 18, 2025, NYT reporting, that courts can't compel him in foreign policy spheres: "A judge wasn't elected to do that—I was elected."

The "lawfare" claim suggests the Left uses litigation to bog down Trump's agenda. Trump's base, per @LauraLoomer's April 2025 posts, sees judicial blocks as elite sabotage, cheering his defiance. The dissenting justices' warnings of a "threat to the rule of law" fuel this divide, framing the judiciary as either a constitutional bulwark or a leftist tool, depending on perspective.

Ignoring court orders isn't new, though it's rare and risky. Historical examples include:

Jackson reportedly defied the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), which protected Cherokee land rights, saying, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." This led to the Trail of Tears, though some historians argue Jackson's defiance was exaggerated.

During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and ignored Chief Justice Roger Taney's ruling in Ex parte Merryman, citing wartime necessity. The judiciary lacked enforcement power, and Congress later ratified Lincoln's actions.

The Supreme Court upheld FDR's use of the AEA in Korematsu v. United States (1944), but executive defiance of due process norms went largely unchecked, later deemed a constitutional failure.

The Bush administration resisted Supreme Court rulings like Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), which granted Guantanamo detainees habeas rights, by slow-rolling compliance and passing the Military Commissions Act to limit judicial oversight.

Trump's current defiance—e.g., deporting Abrego Garcia despite a court order or ignoring Boasberg's flight recall—fits this pattern but pushes further. The administration's claim that it "has no way" to retrieve deportees from El Salvador, despite U.S. influence, has been called bad-faith by judges. Unlike Lincoln's wartime context, Trump's peacetime actions face stricter scrutiny, and the Supreme Court's 2025 rulings show less deference than in Korematsu. Ignoring courts risks a constitutional crisis, as NPR notes, with 40 district court orders blocking Trump's agenda by March 28, 2025, nearly triple Biden's in three years.

Trump's suggestion that due process for "hundreds of thousands" is impossible raises the prospect of legislation to streamline deportations. The INA already allows expedited removal for certain undocumented immigrants (e.g., those caught near borders without claims), but it mandates notice and hearings for others, especially asylum seekers. Could Congress pass an Act to limit due process for "illegals"?

Republicans control the House (220-215) and Senate (53-47) in 2025, per AP projections, giving Trump a narrow edge. However, major immigration reform needs 60 Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, requiring Democratic support. Moderate Republicans like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski might balk at gutting due process, fearing backlash. Democrats, unified against Trump's AEA use, would likely filibuster, as seen in Sen. Alex Padilla's April 8, 2025, statement calling the policy "oppressive."

A new Act could expand expedited removal to all undocumented immigrants, bypassing hearings, or codify AEA use in peacetime for "national security threats" like gangs. It might limit habeas corpus to narrow grounds (e.g., proving non-foreign status) or set strict timelines (e.g., 48 hours) to challenge deportations, effectively neutering due process. Such a law could mirror the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which curtailed immigrant rights but preserved core protections.

The Supreme Court has upheld due process for non-citizens, rooted in the Fifth Amendment (Zadvydas v. Davis, 2001) and habeas rights (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008). A law stripping these could face challenges, though the current 6-3 conservative majority (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) might defer to Congress on immigration, as seen in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). Dissenters like Sotomayor would argue it violates constitutional norms, but the majority's AEA ruling suggests openness to executive power.

Mass deportations require massive resources—ICE's 2024 budget of $8.7 billion supports 34,000 detention beds, far short of the millions Trump targets. A new law would need funding for agents, facilities, and foreign cooperation (e.g., El Salvador's CECOT). Public backlash, like 2024 protests against family separations, could complicate passage, per Reuters.

Slim in the short term. Congress is gridlocked, and even GOP allies might hesitate to endorse a law seen as authoritarian. Trump's team might instead rely on executive actions, like expanding AEA use or pressuring ICE to prioritise removals, while slow-walking court orders to buy time.

Trump's "200 years" claim is hyperbolic but not baseless. ICE's 2024 backlog includes 1.2 million pending immigration cases, with average wait times of 4.3 years, per the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Deporting millions—Trump's stated goal—would overwhelm courts without streamlined processes. His "lawfare" accusation aligns with conservative narratives (e.g., @LauraLoomer on X) that progressive NGOs like the ACLU use litigation to stall enforcement.

Trump's clash with the judiciary reflects a broader struggle over executive power versus constitutional checks. Ignoring courts, as in the Abrego Garcia case, has historical echoes but courts significant risks in 2025, given judicial pushback and public scrutiny. Passing an Act to wind down due process is theoretically possible but politically daunting, requiring unlikely bipartisan support. For now, Trump's team seems poised to stretch existing laws (e.g., AEA) and test judicial patience, betting on delays and a friendly Supreme Court to tilt the scales. Keep an eye on upcoming hearings—Boasberg's contempt probe and the May 15 birthright citizenship case could escalate this showdown.

https://www.dw.com/en/trump-us-cant-give-every-person-it-wants-to-deport-a-trial/a-72304947