Read Justice Alito's disapproval of the Supreme Court's late-night order preventing some deportations.

In a sharp dissCourt of Appeal of the United States

ent that slammed the seven-member majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court acted "literally in the middle of the night" and "without sufficient explanation" in preventing the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under an 18th-century wartime law.

In an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union, Alito and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas stated that there was “dubious factual support” for granting the request. The group argued that under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, immigration authorities appeared to be resuming such removals.

The entire document can be found here.

A.A.R.P., & Others v. DANIEL J. THE PRESIDENT, TRUMP ETC. OF THE UNITED STATES

Concerning the Injunction Application [April 19, 2025]

Dissenting with JUSTICE ALITO and JUSTICE THOMAS. The Court granted unprecedented emergency relief yesterday in a hasty and premature manner shortly after midnight. In accordance with the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. §1651, the

The court instructed "the Government" not to remove a "possible" class of detainees" until a new order from this court is issued. 604 U. S. ___ (2025).

the "putative class" is not defined in the order, it appears that the Court all members of the class that the habeas petitioners sought to certify, namely "all noncitizens in custody in the Subjects in the

Northern District of Texas who were, are, or will be to the Presidential Proclamation "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion" issued in March 2025 of the United States of America by Tren De Aragua' and/or its use." * Class Certification Motion in No. 1:25–cv– 59 (April, ND Tex. 16, 2025), page 3 of ECF Doc. 1.

Even though the Court does not define "the Government," it appears that the term encompasses all the named defendants, the President included. Cf. Fed. Rule XVIII Proc. 65(d)(2).

*The applicants appear to have made a recent move to modify their motion for class certification and the class petition for habeas corpus. Observe the Motions in No. 1:25–cv–59 (ND Tex., Apr. 18, 2025), ECF No. 35. So

A.A.R.P. v. TRUMP

J. ALITO,

dissident It is unclear whether the applicants will continue to defend this particular The Court carried out all of this despite: It is unclear whether the Court was competent. The

An independent grant is not provided by the All Writs Act. of responsibility. See 28 U. S. C. 1651(a) (allowing writs that are "necessary or appropriate in support of" a court's authority); Clinton v. 526 U.S. Goldsmith S. 529,

534–535 (1999) (the All Writs' "express terms") Act limits a court's authority to the issuing process. "in support of" its current statutory authority; the Act does not expand that jurisdiction,'' the quote reads. §1651(a)).

As a result, this Court was competent. only in the event that the Court of Appeals was in charge of the See 1254 (granting this Court's appeal by the applicants). the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review "[c]ases in the courts of appeals"), and only if the applicants' alleged appealed order resulted in the denial of a preliminary injunction. See §1292(a)(1).

But in this instance, the "order" What the applicants appealed was, in their opinion, Their request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) was denied by the District Court in a manner that was "constructive." In No. 1:25–cv–59 (ND Tex., April), 18, 2025), page 41 of ECFDoc. 4 (ECF Document) 41).

Specifically, the District Although they inferred that it was constructively denied due to the District Court's failure, the Court did not actually deny their most recent request for a TRO. to make a decision on that request before a truncated counsel-imposed deadline. See Structure in No. 25–10534, page 18 April 2025, CA5. 3 (Ramirez, J.,

concurring). A true TRO denial cannot be appealed, and it is not clear that the applicants' In fact, the TRO request was turned down. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit ruled in an order issued last night that it lacked jurisdiction because of this. Id., at a