Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas
In a blistering dissent, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, has called out the reckless and legally dubious move by the Court’s liberal majority to block President Donald Trump’s lawful efforts to deport dangerous foreign nationals under the Alien Enemies Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a late-night, unsigned emergency order blocking President Donald Trump from deporting foreign nationals tied to the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, who are being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas under the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act.
According to the order:
“There is before the Court an application on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible.
The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a). Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent from the Court’s order. Statement from Justice Alito to follow.”
The ruling came in response to a hastily filed emergency appeal from the ACLU on behalf of a “putative class” of noncitizen detainees.
According to ACLU, “Plaintiffs learned that the government has begun giving notices of removal to class members, in English only, which do not say how much time individuals have to contest their removal or even how to do so… And officers last night told class members that they will be removed within 24 hours, which expires as early as this afternoon. Upon information and belief, individuals have already been loaded on to buses.”
In a fiery dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Alito took direct aim at the Court’s liberal majority, blasting their eleventh-hour injunction as legally questionable and procedurally incoherent.
“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order,” Alito wrote in his opinion.
“I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trumpv. J.G.G., 604 U. S. (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures.”
According to Alito, the Supreme Court only had jurisdiction if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction first. And the Fifth Circuit could only act if the order appealed from was a denial of a preliminary injunction—not a temporary restraining order (TRO).
Alito made it clear that the far-left groups like the ACLU were manipulating the process by prematurely appealing something that wasn’t even formally denied. The High Court, according to Alito, took the bait—something he says violates precedent and basic legal procedure.
The emergency request did not stem from a real, appealable decision. Instead, the ACLU argued the district court had constructively denied a request by not acting fast enough.
“This Court had jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of the applicants’ appeal, and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction only if the supposed order that the applicants appealed amounted to the denial of a preliminary injunction,” Alito wrote.
“But here, the “order” that applicants appealed was what they viewed as the District Court’s “‘constructive’” denial of their request for a temporary restraining order (TRO).”
Alito said that the Supreme Court intervened before the Fifth Circuit had the chance to weigh in. That violates the normal hierarchy of judicial review.
“When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief, and we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming. This Court, however, refused to wait,” Alito wrote.
Alito slammed the majority for violating the Court’s own Rule 23.3, which requires seeking relief in lower courts first “except in the most extraordinary circumstances.”
Alito noted that the government had not even been allowed to file a response, either in the Supreme Court or the lower courts, before the injunction was granted. He emphasized that the Court acted solely on claims made by the applicants—illegal alien detainees—without any concrete evidence of “imminent danger of removal.”
Read his opinion below:
The post SCOTUS Showdown: Justice Alito Issues Scathing Rebuke of Politically Motivated Order Blocking Trump from Deporting Foreign Terrorists Under Alien Enemies Act appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.