Alien Enemies Act has become a frequent question

The high court has been the most responsive to challenges regarding Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act on the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. While the high court has not ruled on the merits of Trump’s invocation of the law earlier this year, it has made several orders related to the lawsuits challenging the legislation’s usage.

The first challenge to make its way to the high court in April led to the justices ruling that migrants subject to deportation must be given notice and allowed time to challenge their expulsion under the AEA.

Later in April, the high court blocked the deportations of a group of Venezuelans in North Texas through a late-night order, after multiple lower courts had not yet paused the deportations. The speed with which the Supreme Court issued the order blocking the deportations led to a blistering dissent from Justice Samuel Alito, who claimed his colleagues “hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief.”

In May, the high court again paused the deportations of a group of Venezuelan nationals in the Lone Star State, sending the case back to the appeals court for a review of the merits of the case.

The question of the legality of Trump’s use of the 1798 law, previously used primarily during wartime, is likely to make its way back to the Supreme Court, as lower courts consider whether Trump properly invoked the statute allowing for the speedy removal of foreign nationals.

Birthright citizenship is the first major case taken by the high court

The Supreme Court added arguments over the Trump administration’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship late in the term, hearing oral arguments in May as part of its final arguments day for the 2024 term.

The high court consolidated multiple cases and heard arguments earlier this month in a case which could have ramifications for both the executive order changing the longstanding interpretation of constitutional language regarding citizenship and for district courts’ ability to grant nationwide injunctions. The case was brought up to the Supreme Court after nationwide injunctions at lower court levels blocked the president’s order.

The justices appeared uncertain in the oral arguments about how to remedy the sweeping use by district judges of nationwide injunctions, which could have a significant impact on the high court’s emergency docket. The matter of nationwide injunctions took up more of the arguments than the question of revoking birthright citizenship itself.

Challenges to reshaping the executive branch

Other major orders issued on the emergency docket by the Supreme Court in recent months have stemmed from the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the executive branch.

The high court, via its emergency docket, has paved the way for Trump to fire, at least for now, Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and has temporarily shielded the Department of Government Efficiency from being subject to discovery in a lawsuit about whether it is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

BARRETT SPARKS ETHICS DEBATE AFTER SKIPPING CATHOLIC SCHOOL CASE

As the Trump administration continues to face losses and setbacks at the lower courts, the Justice Department will almost certainly continue petitioning the Supreme Court for action through its emergency docket.

The latest emergency application from Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court to permit the deportations of eight convicted criminal illegal immigrants to South Sudan after a lower court halted the removals.