Supreme Court blocks some deportations under the Alien Enemies Act
Lisa Rubin, MSNBC Legal Correspondent and Charlie Sykes, MSNBC Columnist join Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House with reaction to the decision from the Supreme Court that blocks some of the deportations that the Trump Administration has carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, and what comes next as the court has asked a lower court to make some big decisions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
30 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Ending Parole for 500,000 Migrants Creates New Headaches for Employers
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court's decision allowing the Trump administration to revoke temporary protections for half a million migrants brings the U.S. economy closer to labor shortages in industries and regions that rely on foreign workers. The impact will take time to unfold, but could be far-reaching. The potential departure of hundreds of thousands of people from the labor force is creating anxiety for employers and adding a fresh dose of uncertainty for an economy already grappling with the administration's tariff policies.
Axios
42 minutes ago
- Axios
The great undoing: Trump's presidency reeled in by courts
No modern president has done more in his first 130 days than President Trump — only to have much of it undone, at least temporarily, by the courts. The big picture: Trump is testing the limits of presidential power at every turn, and the courts are just about the only thing standing in his way. The inevitable showdowns between Trump and the judiciary are only going to get more intense. Judges have issued dozens of orders blocking Trump from doing something he wants to do, and the flood seems to grow every day. The headlines are constant: Judge blocks X; Judge freezes Y; Court allows Z to continue. This week's ruling against Trump's tariffs — handed down by the usually sleepy Court of International Trade — was one of the biggest shockwaves yet, striking at the centerpiece of his economic agenda and efforts to exert leverage on the world stage. That ruling was quickly put on ice, temporarily, by an appeals court. But there will be more tariff litigation, and more litigation on just about everything else. On education, a federal judge in Boston this week said Trump could not stop Harvard from enrolling international students, at least for now. A separate Boston-based judge last week froze Trump's plans to largely eliminate the Department of Education. That added to an absolute mountain of litigation over Trump's various efforts to gut the federal bureaucracy. Courts have stopped or slowed some DOGE-led cuts across the government, the firing of people who serve on independent boards, and the laying off of other government workers. Immigration has been the most explosive flashpoint of all. Every court that's considered Trump's executive order redefining the rules of American citizenship has ruled against it. The administration has pointedly refused to bring back the man it wrongly deported to El Salvador, despite even the Supreme Court telling it to "facilitate" his return. Judges in lower courts have blocked similar deportations or ordered the government to provide some sort of hearing before deporting people. Between the lines: To some extent, this is the system working the same way it always works. The big things presidents do, at least in the modern era, end up in court. Obamacare was a big thing, done by both the president and Congress. It's been before the Supreme Court no less than three times. Forgiving student loans and trying to impose COVID vaccine mandates were, for better or worse, big things President Biden attempted. The Supreme Court said both were too big. Trump has made no bones about wanting to go as big as possible, all the time, on everything — and to do it mostly through executive action. Everyone knew before this administration began that myriad legal challenges were inevitable. And, well, they were. Unlike previous presidents, Trump and his allies have relentlessly attacked judges whose rulings block parts of his agenda. As these battles progress, Trump will win some and lose some. Every single person Trump has tried to fire may not end up fired. But if and when all of those one-off challenges coalesce into a real, big-picture Supreme Court referendum on the president's power to fire federal workers, the smart money says that's a fight Trump will most likely win. On the other hand, eliminating birthright citizenship is a long shot. The Justice Department is trying to persuade the Supreme Court that it's been misinterpreting the Constitution for 100 years. That is (a) obviously going to end up in court; and (b) a hard sell. What's next: Almost none of this — on any issue — has reached the point yet where judges are actually striking down or upholding Trump's policies. This is why the headlines you see all use words like "block" or "freeze" or "temporarily." For now, what's being decided is mainly whether Trump can go ahead and enact X or Y policy while the courts figure out whether that policy is legal. As explosive as these legal battles already are, we haven't even touched the highest-stakes chapters in the ongoing saga of Trump vs. the courts.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Unconstitutional Conservatives
Not too long ago, many Republicans proudly referred to themselves as 'constitutional conservatives.' They believed in the rule of law; in limiting the power of government, especially the federal government; in protecting individual liberty; and in checks and balances and the separation of powers. They opposed central planning and warned about emotions stirred up by the mob and the moment, believing, as the Founders did, that the role of government was to mediate rather than mirror popular passions. They recognized the importance of self-restraint and the need to cultivate public and private virtues. And they had reverence for the Constitution, less as a philosophical document than a procedural one, which articulated the rules of the road for American democracy. When it came to judicial philosophy, 'constitutional conservatism' meant textualism, which prioritizes the plain meaning of the text in statutes and the Constitution. Justice Antonin Scalia excoriated outcome-based jurisprudence; judges should never prioritize their own desired outcomes, he warned, but should instead apply the text of the Constitution fairly. 'The main danger in judicial interpretation of the Constitution—or, for that matter, in judicial interpretation of any law,' he said in 1988, 'is that the judges will mistake their own predilections for the law.' One of the reasons Roe v. Wade was viewed as a travesty by conservatives is that they believed the 1973 Supreme Court decision twisted the Constitution to invent a 'right to privacy' in order to legalize abortion. The decision, they felt, was driven by a desired outcome rather than a rigorous analysis of legal precedent or constitutional text. WHICH IS WHY it's hard to think of a more anti-conservative figure than President Donald Trump or a more anti-conservative movement than MAGA. Trump and his supporters evince a disdain for laws, procedures, and the Constitution. They want to empower the federal government in order to turn it into an instrument of brute force that can be used to reward allies and destroy opponents. [Read: In Trump immigration cases, it's one thing in public, another in court] Trump and his administration have abolished agencies and imposed sweeping tariffs even when they don't have the legal authority to do so. They are deporting people without due process. Top aides are floating the idea of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, one of the most important constitutional protections against unlawful detention. Judges, who are the target of threats from the president, fear for their safety. So do the very few Republicans who are willing to assert their independence from Trump. In one of his first official acts, Trump granted clemency to more than 1,500 people charged in connection with the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, including those convicted of seditious conspiracy. The president and his family are engaging in a level of corruption that was previously unfathomable. And he and his administration have shown no qualms about using the federal government to target private companies, law firms, and universities; suing news organizations for baseless reasons; and ordering criminal probes into former administration officials who criticized Trump. The Trump administration is a thugocracy, and the Republican Party he controls supports him each step of the way. Almost every principle to which Republicans once professed fealty has been jettisoned. The party is now devoted to the abuse of power and to vengeance. POLITICAL THEORISTS recognize that the governing approach of Trump and the GOP embodies the philosophy of Nietzsche and Machiavelli. It's all about the world of 'Anything goes' and 'Might makes right.' Laws and the Constitution are as malleable as hot wax; they can be reshaped as needed. Limited government has been traded for the Leviathan, and there are no constraints. The state has become a blunt-force instrument. The significance of this shift can hardly be overstated. A party that formerly proclaimed allegiance to the Constitution and the rule of law, warned about the concentration and abuse of power, and championed virtue, restraint, and moral formation has been transmogrified. The Republican Party now stands for everything it once loathed. [Peter Wehner: America's Mad King] If this rot was confined to the GOP, it would be tragic but manageable. But Trump and the Republican Party control the levers of federal power. As a result, less than five months into Trump's second term, America is heading toward a form of authoritarianism. We are still mid-story. The outcome is not ordained, and the courts are turning out to be, for the most part, a vital bulwark against Trumpism. The clashes will surely intensify as Trump rages against the storm. But as he does so, the resistance to him will grow and intensify too, and it will find expression in many different ways. The flame of liberty hasn't been extinguished quite yet. Love of country is, as the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb said, an ennobling sentiment, worthy of our affections. And love of country demands that those who love America and her ideals stand up against a man and a party intent on destroying them. *Illustration by Akshita Chandra / The Atlantic. Sources: The Nature Notes / Alamy; Getty Article originally published at The Atlantic
