Venezuelan migrants ask U.S. Supreme Court to halt 'imminent' deportations
Lawyers for Venezuelan men detained in Texas asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to block what the lawyers said were the men's imminent deportation by the Trump administration without the judicial review previously mandated by the justices.
In a court filing, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union said some of the dozens of the men held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas, had already been loaded onto a bus and told they were to be deported.
Shortly after the filing, a government lawyer said he was unaware of plans by the Department of Homeland Security to deport the men on Friday, but there could be deportations on Saturday.
"I've spoken with DHS. They are not aware of any current plans for flights tomorrow but I have also been told to say they reserve the right to remove people tomorrow," Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign told a district court in a separate but related case.
In that district court case, Judge James Boasberg denied an ACLU request to block Trump from deporting suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The cases raise questions about the Trump administration's adherence to limits set by the Supreme Court. It carries the risk of a significant clash between the two coequal branches of government and possibly even a full-blown constitutional crisis.
The lawyers for the Venezuelans filed with the Supreme Court after failing to get a rapid response from earlier filings on Friday before U.S. District Judge James Hendrix in Abilene, Texas, and the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to block any such deportations.
The ACLU said the men had been handed forms indicating they were classified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
At issue is whether the Trump administration has fulfilled the Supreme Court's standard for providing the detainees due process before sending them to another country — possibly to the notorious prison in El Salvador where others are jailed.
It was unclear on Friday how many people were potentially to be deported, and where they might be taken.
The men's deportation would be the first since the Supreme Court told the Trump administration on April 7 that it must provide notice to Venezuelan migrants it is seeking to deport and give them the opportunity to challenge their deportations in court.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court allowed removals under that law to continue, but specified that "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."
Habeas corpus relief refers to the right of detainees to challenge the legality of their detention. It is considered a bedrock right under U.S. law.
The ACLU filed a photo of one of the notices with the court.
"You have been determined to be an Alien Enemy subject to apprehension, restraint, and removal," read the notice. The recipient's name was obscured, and it was noted that the migrant refused to sign it on Friday.
Elected last year on a promise to crack down on migrants, Trump invoked the law last month in a bid to bypass normal procedures and swiftly deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua, which his administration labels a terrorist group.
Asked about the planned deportations on Friday, Trump said he was unfamiliar with the particular case but added: "If they're bad people, I would certainly authorize it."
"That's why I was elected. A judge wasn't elected," he told reporters at the White House.
Defense lawyers and Democrats in Congress have pressed the administration to demonstrate how it knows the Venezuelans are members of the gang, which is active in human trafficking and other crimes in South America but has a smaller U.S. presence.
"We are not going to reveal the details of counter terrorism operations, but we are complying with the Supreme Court's ruling," Assistant Secretary for U.S. Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement on Friday.
The Supreme Court did not indicate how much notice should be provided. Lawyers around the country have asked that the migrants be given 30 days' notice to allow them to contest their deportations. The Trump administration has not said publicly how much notice it intends to give the migrants.
Judges in Manhattan, Denver, and Brownsville, Texas, have issued temporary orders blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act within their district.
On March 15, the Trump administration deported more than 130 alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador, citing the Alien Enemies Act, best known for being used to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent during World War II. Many of the migrants' lawyers and family members say they were not gang members and had no chance to dispute the government's assertion that they were.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., swiftly blocked any further deportations under the law. Trump then called for Boasberg's impeachment, prompting a rare rebuke from U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who said appeals, not impeachment, are the proper response to adverse court decisions.
Boasberg is now probing whether the Trump administration violated his order to return the migrants, and warned that he could hold officials in contempt of court. An appeals court paused that inquiry on Friday.
The Justice Department's statement that there were no plans for immediate deportations of Venezuelans was made during arguments on Friday in Boasberg's court. The judge had convened the hearing to weigh the ACLU's request for an emergency order blocking the administration from deporting people under the Alien Enemies Act without proper legal notice.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Brazil's Supreme Court justices agree to make social media companies liable for user content
Minister Luiz Fux, left, Google Brazil's rapporteur, talks with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberto Barroso, during the court's resumption of social media regulation cases regarding online disinformation, in Brasilia, Brazil, Wednesday, June 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres) By MAURICIO SAVARESE and ELÉONORE HUGHES The majority of justices on Brazil's Supreme Court have agreed to make social media companies liable for illegal postings by their users, in a landmark case for Latin America with implications for U.S. relations. Brazil's top court decided to rule on two different cases to reach an understanding on how to deal with social media companies as reports of fraud, child pornography and violence among teenagers become rampant online. Critics warn such measures could threaten free speech as platforms preemptively remove content that could be problematic. Gilmar Mendes on Wednesday became the sixth of the court's 11 justices to vote to open a path for companies like Meta, X and Microsoft to be sued and pay fines for content published by their users. Voting is ongoing but a simple majority is all that is needed for the measure to pass. The ruling will come after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of possible visa restrictions against foreign officials allegedly involved in censoring American citizens. One such official reportedly is Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has taken measures against social media outlets he deemed to have not complied with Brazilian law. The only dissenting Brazilian justice so far is André Mendonça and his vote was made public last week. The court is yet to decide how such regulations will be enacted. Mendonça said free speech on social media is key for the publication of information that "holds powerful public institutions to account, including governments, political elites and digital platforms.' Justice Flávio Dino, the first to vote on Wednesday, reminded his colleagues that recent cases of school shootings in Brazil were stimulated on social media. He read out postings by one user who said he was happy by watching families of dead children 'weeping, bleeding, dying.' 'I think social media has not made humanity closer to what it has produced in best fashion,' he said. The social media proposal would become law once voting is finished and the result is published. But Brazil's Congress could still pass another law to reverse the measure. The current legislation states social media companies can only be held responsible if they do not remove hazardous content after a court order. Public debate on regulating social networks increased in Brazil in the aftermath of the Jan. 8 riot in 2023, when supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro ransacked Congress, the presidential palace and the Supreme Court in the capital, Brasilia. Platforms need to be pro-active in regulating content, said Alvaro Palma de Jorge, a law professor at the Rio-based Getulio Vargas Foundation, a think tank and university. 'They need to adopt certain precautions that are not compatible with simply waiting for a judge to eventually issue a decision ordering the removal of that content,' Palma de Jorge said. Wednesday's ruling brings Brazil's approach to big tech closer to the European Union's approach, which has sought to rein in the power of social media companies and other digital platforms. Rendering platforms automatically accountable for content on their platforms may infringe freedom of speech as they could resort to preemptively removing content, according to the Sao-Paulo based Brazilian Chamber of Digital Economy, an organization that represents sectors of the digital economy. 'This type of liability favors large companies with robust legal structures, to the detriment of smaller, national players, which negatively impacts competition,' said the organization, adding that the decision may increase barriers to innovation. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.


Japan Today
3 hours ago
- Japan Today
GM to invest $4 billion to ramp up U.S. production
FILE - Vehicles move along the 2023 Chevrolet Bolt EV and EUV assembly line at the General Motors Orion Assembly June 15, 2023, in Lake Orion, Mich. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File) By MICHELLE CHAPMAN Shares of General Motors rose before the opening bell after announcing plans to invest $4 billion to shift some production from Mexico to U.S. manufacturing plants as the automaker navigates tariffs that could drive prices higher. President Trump signed executive orders in April, relaxing some of his 25% tariffs on automobiles and auto parts, a significant reversal as the import taxes threatened to hurt domestic manufacturers. Automakers and independent analyses say the tariffs could raise prices, reduce sales and make U.S. production less competitive worldwide. Trump portrayed the changes as a bridge toward automakers moving more production into the United States. GM said late Tuesday that the investment will be made over the next two years and is for its gas and electric vehicles. The company will add production of the gas-powered Chevrolet Blazer and Chevrolet Equinox, which are made in Mexico, to two American plants starting in 2027. The Blazer will be produced at GM's Spring Hill, Tennessee plant, while the Equinox will be made at its Kansas City, Kansas facility. GM will also begin making gas-powered full-size SUVs and light duty pickup trucks at its Orion Township, Michigan plant, which was previously being reconfigured to make electric vehicles until demand for such cars weakened. The new investment will give GM the ability to assemble more than 2 million vehicles per year in the U.S. CEO Mary Barra said in a statement on Tuesday that GM is committed to building vehicles in the U.S. and supporting American jobs. GM has 50 U.S. manufacturing plants and parts facilities in 19 states, including 11 vehicle assembly plants. The company says that almost 1 million people in the U.S. depend on it for their livelihood, including employees, suppliers, and dealers. Last month GM lowered its profit expectations for the year as it braces for a potential impact from auto tariffs as high as $5 billion in 2025. The automaker now foresees full-year adjusted earnings before interest and taxes in a range of $10 billion to $12.5 billion. The guidance includes a current tariff exposure of $4 billion to $5 billion. GM previously predicted 2025 adjusted EBIT between $13.7 billion and $15.7 billion. Shares of General Motors Co. rose almost 1% before the opening bell Wednesday. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.


Japan Today
3 hours ago
- Japan Today
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms; says they 'went too far'
Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, says he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the U.S. president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X, in a message that was received favorably by the White House. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." But after Musk's expression of regret, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump was "appreciative," adding that "no efforts" had been made on a threat by Trump to end some of Musk's government contracts. "The president acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning, and he is appreciative of it," Leavitt said. According to the New York Times, Musk's message followed a phone call to Trump late on Monday night. Vice President JD Vance and Chief of Staff Susan Wiles had also been working with Musk on how to broker a truce with Trump, the report said. In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days, with Musk describing the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the U.S. government money. U.S. media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both already appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sex trafficking. © 2025 AFP