SC backs Trump in deportations case

The unsigned 5-4 decision was powered by the court's conservative justices.


Reuters April 09, 2025
Reuters

print-news
Listen to article
NEW YORK:

A US judge canceled a hearing set for Tuesday over whether to impose a longer-lasting block on President Donald Trump's deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime after the US Supreme Court lifted his temporary ban, but he did not immediately dismiss the case.

The Supreme Court on Monday night granted the administration's request to end Washington-based US District Judge James Boasberg's orders that had temporarily blocked the summary deportations under Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act while litigation in the case continues.

The unsigned 5-4 decision was powered by the court's conservative justices. In a filing after the Supreme Court decision, Justice Department lawyers told Boasberg that he no longer has jurisdiction in the matter, should drop the case and should deny the preliminary injunction request by the migrants.

In ending Boasberg's temporary restraining orders barring such deportations issued on March 15 and March 28 and lasting two weeks apiece, the Supreme Court said detainees should have contested their deportations in Texas, where they were confined, rather than in Washington.

In a brief written order on Tuesday, Boasberg asked lawyers for the detained Venezuelan migrants to tell him by April 16 whether they intend to move forward with their bid for a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.

Lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union, who are representing the migrants who have filed a legal challenge to Trump's use of the 18th century law to justify the deportations, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Tuesday before Boasberg's postponement, Trump-appointed US Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Supreme Court's decision meant that "violent gang members" already deported would remain in El Salvador, where they are being held, and that she expects the case to move to Texas.

"The Supreme Court has spoken loud and clear - he has no jurisdiction," Bondi said, referring to Boasberg

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ