Following the Trump administration’s defiance of lower-court rulings in regard to the same matters, SCOTUS intervened, put a stay on a lower-court ruling and essentially greenlit the practice of sending migrants—many of whom reportedly have no criminal record—to “third countries.”
Appearing in many media headlines, any mention of deportations to “third countries” is a benign euphemism for the extra-Constitutional practice of sending people to foreign lands a) not from their place of birth or origin; b) willing to take them; and c) intentionally chosen, apparently, for their lack of humanitarian controls.
From Nina Totenberg at NPR:
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a lower court order that required 15 days notice to individuals the Trump administration is trying to deport to countries other than their own. The high court’s action, at least for now, reversed the lower court’s order requiring that those being deported have enough time to contact their lawyers and present evidence that would show their lives would be in danger if deported to certain countries. The order focused on a flight carrying several men from various countries — including Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and Mexico — which was initially headed to South Sudan but ended up in the East African country of Djibouti in order to give the men time to dispute their final destination. The U.S. government says the men are violent criminals, convicted of crimes including murder, sexual assault, kidnapping and robbery, and said they don’t deserve to stay in the United States.
The 6-3 ruling earned a scathing dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that the government was acting as if “unconstrained by law” and due-process protections.
In a searing dissent, the court’s three liberals accused the conservative majority of ‘rewarding lawlessness.’ Writing for the three, Justice Sotomayor said, ‘The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone, anywhere without notice or an opportunity be heard.’ She added that the Trump administration had already acted ‘in violation of unambiguous’ lower court orders, by flying four non-citizens to Guantanamo Bay, and from there to El Salvador.
In his arguments to SCOTUS, Solicitor General John Sauer complained that lower courts were “wreaking havoc” over Trump’s deportation scheme. Sauer provided no concrete evidence as to why SCOTUS needed to take the dramatic step in overruling lower courts.
Sauer proved his “MAGA bona fides” in arguing “presidential immunity” to the same body in April 2024.
More recently in March, Trump defied another court ruling by sending hundreds of migrants (some which escaped violence there initially) to the notorious slave prison in El Salvador.
AUTHOR FOOTNOTE
Inherent in Sotomayor’s dissent is the following message: her Federalist Society-selected “jurist” “colleagues” on SCOTUS are rubber-stamping illegal conduct.
Read that again.
Due process is due process. That is black letter in our Constitution for a reason. As such, Sauer’s whining with “you guys, lower courts are being mean to us” and then refusing to provide even an iota of evidence to support his complaint? We aren’t talking about how to build a sandwich at Subway to your liking: they are renditioning real people with real families and real livelihoods who, in almost every case, are productive members of society.
The NPR piece has major flaws in that it does not mention Sauer’s complete lack of evidence; nor does include the fact that SCOTUS put this ruling on so-called “Shadow docket” in an unsigned order. Steve Vladeck did, though, and also nailed his subhead:
The majority did not just greenlight an especially odious immigration policy without any explanation; it did so in a case in which the government defied the district court—twice—with no consequence.
I’ll give you one guess which one I will strongly recommend you read in full.
