SCOTUS

Mik

@Mik said in SCOTUS:

The admin should have returned him. As far as I can see there's no reason to deem him a gang member. He was here legally under an asylum claim.

Meh, a lot of the media claims about his perfect behavior are incorrect. The guy has been arrested on multiple occasions and has also been denied bail by a a judge due to his gang affiliations. There is more to this story…

I haven't seen any of that. Do you have a link I can review?

Mik

OK, I looked him up. That isn't the guy I was thinking of.

jon-nyc

@Jolly said in SCOTUS:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-enforce-alien-enemies-act-for-rapid-deportations-for-now/ar-AA1CtIIZ?ocid=BingNewsVerp

Weird how they spin this as a victory when the court took away their one reason for invoking the AEA to begin with.

Mik

Still, if you’re going to stick someone in max security in El Salvador, you’d better have something more than vague tattoos.

jon-nyc

Yeah SCOTUS is requiring that they get their day in court, and Trump invoked the AEA so as to avoid that.

jon-nyc

SCOTUS blocked the administration from punishing AP for their speech.

Mik

Sounds right.

jon-nyc

9-0, get the administrative error guy back from El Salvador.

Jolly

If they can.

BTW, did they give Trump a mechanism to do so?

Margolis' take:

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/04/11/democrats-cheering-ms-13-gang-members-return-missed-a-key-detail-in-scotus-ruling-n4938799

jon-nyc

Alexander Graham Bell gave it to them.

Jolly

Read the decision.

jon-nyc

Scotus halts Alien Enemies Act deportations.

LuFins Dad

7-2?

jon-nyc

Yep. Alito is going to issue a statement.

taiwan_girl

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS:

Yep. Alito is going to issue a statement.

If I read correctly, he did not necessary disagree with the decision, but more the timing.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alito-blasts-unprecedented-scotus-move-halt-trumps-venezuelan-deportations-legally-questionable

Alito disapproved of the timing of the decision, which he described as being "literally in the middle of the night."

"[T]he 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.

The justice, who has served on the court since 2006, was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent.

"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," Alito continued.

"Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures."

The New Coffee Room

SCOTUS