The justices said no action should be taken to pursue the deportations of any alleged Venezuelan gang members in Texas under the rarely used wartime law.
The justices said no action should be taken to pursue the deportations of any alleged Venezuelan gang members in Texas under the rarely used wartime law.
They got SCOTUS working at 1am on a Saturday. Even Alito and Thomas were on board. This is reassuring news.
I think you read that wrong, they (Alito/Thomas) specifically dissented.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
I read it at 5am. My mistake. Edited for accuracy. Thanks for the correction.
No they weren’t. These emergency decisions are unsigned, so normally we don’t really know who advocated for what, all we know is that a majority of the Court was in favor. Since the press is now reporting that Alito and Thomas dissented, though, they must have made some separate statement to that effect later.
But we don’t really know whether there are 7 justices in favor, we just know there are at least 5.
It’s in the article and the ruling. They are explicitly listed as dissenting.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
I read it at 5am. My mistake. Edited for accuracy. Thanks for the correction.
Interesting. Is it normal, for dissenting opinions to be made explicit on an unsigned order like this?
If not, for me it’s immediately a red flag. Why is it so important for these two to publicize that they dissented on an otherwise unsigned order? Is there another RV shipment coming soon? I guess we’ll find out soon enough because the order says Alito will publish a written dissent later…
Were they though??
I read it at 5am. My mistake. Edited for accuracy. Thanks for the correction.
No it’s not. The judiciary doesn’t have an enforcement arm. It’s troublesome
Why do I keep hearing this?
Three branches all have enforment. In contempt of Congress or contempt of Court, the branches can deputize as many people as necessary to make arrears.
Because it’s not an arm of enforcement and has rarely been attempted
That’s not correct. Courts can appoint attorneys for enforcement. Boasberg has already preemptively stated that he would if the DoJ refuses to enforce a court order.
https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/
According to the link you posted, it is correct. The usual enforcement arm for the courts is the US Marshalls under the DOJ. However, they have other options that have never been tried.
So what’s stopping the President from ordering the FBI/Marshalls/etc from actively preventing the arrest of the person in contempt?
It’s in that same article. A judge may deputize someone to enforce a court order. That’s assuming the DoJ refuses, then the judge issues a writ that is ignored.
The US Marshalls of the DOJ is usually the enforcement arm for the judiciary.
Deputizing someone is an enforcement mechanism and not the enforcement arm.
Fair enough. You are technically correct. That’s not a roadblock, it’s just an additional step.
It’s not just about having armed men to throw people in jail, that’s not how things work. It’s about legitimacy.
Yes - the rules at the top of the federal government are different. No, that’s not new. Representatives and the president aren’t generally held personally responsible for things they do as part of their job (voting on laws for example). It would be too easy to abuse such a system. Many decisions made, no matter how small or well intentioned, will cause harm in some way. So they are insulated from that.
But when the scotus rules that a branch has violated law then things change. A president who ignores the court will lose legitimacy. Legislators should act to correct that (yes yes, I know) and the voters have a clear indication that they should also correct itn as well. Civil servants are also at risk personally if they violate a court order (yes, it’s unfair) which makes it harder for the executive to continue to do so.
It’s interesting that the one judge who was going to conduct his own contempt hearings also claimed the right to appoint a prosecutor if the Justice Department chooses not to. That process is on hold while the appeals court considers it. (Which is not surprising, it’s quite a big step and deserves some review). But if the appeals court allows it to go forward with an Independant prosecutor, then we might be getting somewhere.