Alien Enemies Act of 1798

[Dude#1279435]

Sorry but basically I've concluded Trump supporters are pro-sweeps and authoritarians. This guy comes right out and says ah we're fallible people and if innocents get caught in the sweeps hopefully we can fix the system later. I can see some of the fault in the Biden admin, but he says ah yanno all of it is their fault.

Deport Tim Poole just because

See I feel better already.

 

[Mr._Clark]

The administration is reportedly continuing deportations based on other laws.

>>>While the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants from the US remains halted amid a legal fight, it conducted new deportations to El Salvador over the weekend. . . . A senior State Department official confirmed to Semafor that the individuals were removed from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador; the deportation occurred under other authorities, including Title 8 under immigration law, the official added.<<<

Trump administration deports more alleged gang members, avoiding Alien Enemies Act

The names of the 17 people deported were provided to Semafor, a shift from the previous flights using the 1798 law.

www.semafor.com

I haven't seen much information on these deportations, but my initial impression is that it makes more sense than invoking the Alien Enemies Act (that's not to say it definitely satisfies due process).

 

[Mr._Clark]

It will be interesting (for lack of a better word) to see how this plays out.

>>>A federal judge Wednesday found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying his order to immediately halt deportations under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act and turn around any airborne planes. . . .

“The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote. . . .

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” he wrote. <<< (emphasis added)

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5251829-boasberg-trump-contempt/

A huge blast of complete bullsh*t from Trump and Bondi will inevitably follow, but that's the only predictable aspect of this.

 

[GO-NAD!]

It will be interesting (for lack of a better word) to see how this plays out.

>>>A federal judge Wednesday found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying his order to immediately halt deportations under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act and turn around any airborne planes. . . .

“The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote. . . .

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” he wrote. <<< (emphasis added)

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5251829-boasberg-trump-contempt/

A huge blast of complete bullsh*t from Trump and Bondi will inevitably follow, but that's the only predictable aspect of this.

From a practical standpoint, will it matter? Or, will the administration ignore this with impunity, too?

 

[Mr._Clark]

From a practical standpoint, will it matter? Or, will the administration ignore this with impunity, too?

Honestly, I’m not sure.

The judge gave the administration an off ramp (following the original order) but I highly doubt that the administration will take it.

Federal courts rely on the US Marshals Service to enforce court orders. As far as I know they have always done so, but I don’t know what would happen if Trump told them to stand down or be fired

This is speculative on my part but it seems to me that at some point DOJ lawyers involved in open violation of the law could be subject to ethics charges which could result in them being disbarred. Trump can’t override a bar association. Very few lawyers would be willing to sacrifice their careers but I suppose there are some. Even if this were to occur (again, speculative on my part), it wouldn’t force the government to comply with the court but it might make it difficult for the government to find lawyers who are willing to represent them in court.

As an aside, the DOJ is really damaging its standing and credibility with the courts.

 

[TankTop5]

From a practical standpoint, will it matter? Or, will the administration ignore this with impunity, too?

From a practical standpoint, presidents have ignored courts numerous times throughout history. Nobody’s ever been arrested for it and furthermore there has never been any real repercussions.
Boesberg just got shot down by a federal court and SCOTUS put a hold on deportations under the alien enemies act but that’s just until the conservative 5th circuit rules on cases it’s currently hearing. To me it “feels” like SCOTUS is simply pushing back for relevance as the 3rd coequal branch.
Trump will continue deportations under other statutes and not much will change. I think in the end Alien Enimies Act will stand as courts don’t have much Jurisdiction in the Presidents war powers and they shouldn’t. This is the job of Congress to either reinforce or remove Presidential powers.
US Marshals won’t do squat in this situation. I would love to see them used to drag legislatures before Congress who refuse to testify when ordered and contempt of Congress needs to gain some teeth

 

[Trell]

From a practical standpoint, presidents have ignored courts numerous times throughout history. Nobody’s ever been arrested for it and furthermore there has never been any real repercussions.

A President defying the courts did happen in the early 18 hundreds but I don't think it has happened since. You got a source for it in modern times?

Trump is openly defying the courts to in effect turn USA into an authoritarian state where anyone can be lawlessly disappeared without due process.

Boesberg just got shot down by a federal court and SCOTUS put a hold on deportations under the alien enemies act but that’s just until the conservative 5th circuit rules on cases it’s currently hearing.

As far as I know Boesberg is not "shot down by a federal court" but his contempt proceedings was put on an administrative pause until a higher court could review it.

And just because the 5th circuit is known to be conservative does not mean that they are MAGA and will allow people to be disappeared without due process.

To me it “feels” like SCOTUS is simply pushing back for relevance as the 3rd coequal branch.

What are you talking about?

Trump will continue deportations under other statutes and not much will change. I think in the end Alien Enimies Act will stand as courts don’t have much Jurisdiction in the Presidents war powers and they shouldn’t.

Are US in a war now with enemy incursions into US territories?

This is the job of Congress to either reinforce or remove Presidential powers.

Well, President Trump is ignoring laws passed by Congress about tariffs. There's even something about in your Constitution.

US Marshals won’t do squat in this situation. I would love to see them used to drag legislatures before Congress who refuse to testify when ordered and contempt of Congress needs to gain some teeth

They work for DOJ so there's that. But Bannon did serve time in prison for contempt of Congress.

 

[Mr._Clark]

As an aside, the DOJ is really damaging its standing and credibility with the courts.

Here's a blog post by Steve Vladeck. As far as I can tell, Vladeck is relatively impartial.

>>>perhaps most significantly, the Court seemed to not be content with relying upon representations by the government’s lawyers. . . . In a world in which a majority of the justices were willing to take these kinds of representations at face value, there might’ve been no need to intervene overnight Friday evening . . . The Court appears to be finally getting the message—and, in turn, handing down rulings with none of the wiggle room we saw in the J.G.G. and Abrego Garcia decisions last week. That’s a massively significant development unto itself—especially if it turns out to be more than a one-off.<<<

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/144-the-supreme-courts-late-night

He also provides a succinct overview of the prior Supreme Court AEA decision a few days ago.

>>>As folks may recall, just 12 days ago, the Court issued a short per curiam opinion in Trump v. J.G.G., in which it held two things: First, a 5-4 majority held that challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought through habeas petitions where detainees are being held, not through Administrative Procedure Act claims in the D.C. district court (like J.G.G.). Second, the Court unanimously held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” . . . no court has ruled, one way or the other, on either the facial legal question (does the AEA apply at all to Tren de Aragua); or case-specific factual/legal questions about whether individual detainees really are “members” of TdA. <<<

 

[Mr._Clark]

A President defying the courts did happen in the early 18 hundreds but I don't think it has happened since. You got a source for it in modern times?

Trump is openly defying the courts to in effect turn USA into an authoritarian state where anyone can be lawlessly disappeared without due process.

It is highly unusual for presidents to defy court orders. I'm not aware of a single instance in which a President defied a Supreme Court court order involving constitutional rights of individuals.

If the President can make people disappear with impunity, the Second Coming is upon us. No, not that one, this one:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world . . .

Surely the Second Coming is at hand. . . .

The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

 

[Mikado463]

It is highly unusual for presidents to defy court orders. I'm not aware of a single instance in which a President defied a Supreme Court court order involving constitutional rights of individuals.

If the President can make people disappear with impunity, the Second Coming is upon us. No, not that one, this one:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world . . .

Surely the Second Coming is at hand. . . .

The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

and lets add to that, Harry Chapin's 'Dance Band of the Titanic' !

'sing near thy God to thee, the iceberg's on the starboard bow, won't you dance with me'

 

[Mr._Clark]

. . . Stephen Miller has precisely the same legal education a dung beetle, and it shows.

I suppose a certain number of people will believe the dung beetle.

The dung beetle has been actively displaying his ignorance lately.

>>>We’re all used to implausible spins by White House officials. But White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has stooped to a new level. An appallingly low one. And he has done so in the disservice of spurring the White House to defy a Supreme Court ruling. . . .

here’s how Miller absurdly summarized the Supreme Court’s ruling four days earlier in Noem v. Abrego Garcia:

[(1)]The Supreme Court said the district-court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed 9-0, unanimously…. [(2)] The ruling solely stated that if this individual, at El Salvador’s sole discretion, were sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time.

On (1): The Court did not say that the district-court order was unlawful. On the contrary, it left that order in effect, with a request for clarification on effectuate.

On (2): The ruling states that the district-court order “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” Miller’s assertion about what the ruling “solely stated” is ridiculous. . . .

If the White House is going to refuse to accept and abide by its losses on emergency applications, the Supreme Court might well decide to summarily reject those applications. <<<

Stephen Miller’s Brazen Misrepresentation of Abrego Garcia Ruling | National Review

We’re all used to implausible spins by White House officials. But White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has stooped to a new level.

www.nationalreview.com

If Miller actually believes what he says, he may well be the dumbest SOB on the face of the earth.

 

[TLS Guy]

The dung beetle has been actively displaying his ignorance lately.

>>>We’re all used to implausible spins by White House officials. But White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has stooped to a new level. An appallingly low one. And he has done so in the disservice of spurring the White House to defy a Supreme Court ruling. . . .

here’s how Miller absurdly summarized the Supreme Court’s ruling four days earlier in Noem v. Abrego Garcia:

On (1): The Court did not say that the district-court order was unlawful. On the contrary, it left that order in effect, with a request for clarification on effectuate.

On (2): The ruling states that the district-court order “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” Miller’s assertion about what the ruling “solely stated” is ridiculous. . . .

If the White House is going to refuse to accept and abide by its losses on emergency applications, the Supreme Court might well decide to summarily reject those applications. <<<

Stephen Miller’s Brazen Misrepresentation of Abrego Garcia Ruling | National Review

We’re all used to implausible spins by White House officials. But White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has stooped to a new level.

www.nationalreview.com

If Miller actually believes what he says, he may well be the dumbest SOB on the face of the earth.

Lies are the foundational weapons of fascists.