Migrant lawyers claim Trump is deporting without 'due process,' but what does that mean?
Lawyers for Venezuelan men facing deportation told the Supreme Court on Monday that the Trump administration is defying its order by failing to give proper notice, violating their due process rights under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling in a separate case on April 7, allowing the Trump administration to continue its deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA), proving a significant victory for President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. The justices noted that the deportations could continue so long as the AEA detainees received proper notice.
"More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act," the opinion reads. "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."
Due process is a constitutional principle that ensures fairness in legal and administrative proceedings, which includes giving proper notice and an opportunity to be heard in a timely manner by an impartial tribunal. The Supreme Court pointed to Reno v. Flores, a 1993 Supreme Court case, in writing, '"It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law' in the context of removal proceedings."
"So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard 'appropriate to the nature of the case,'" the Court wrote, citing another Supreme Court precedent.
Former Palm Beach County, Florida, state attorney Dave Aronberg told Fox News Digital the high court has purposefully avoided "precise language" when issuing such opinions, leaving the lower courts to concretely delineate what proper due process looks like in these cases.
"Chief Justice [John] Roberts is trying to get unanimity within the Supreme Court," Aronberg said. "He wants everyone on the same page. And he also wants to avoid a constitutional crisis with the executive branch. So with all these competing interests in mind, he's trying to be more conciliatory than confrontational with the White House. But that can only go so far."
Aronberg said that "we may see stronger language going forward from the high court" as the legal challenges proceed.
In its Monday filing, plaintiff attorneys argued the notice given to the detainees was "inadequate" in light of the high court's order.
The attorneys wrote that the notice provided was in English, "even though putative class members largely speak only Spanish," and that it "did not inform" the individuals about how to contest their designation and removal under the AEA, or provide a timeline on how to do so.
They argued the notice provided "comes nowhere near satisfying the Court's directive" issued on April 7.
"Whatever due process may require in this context, it does not allow removing a person to a possible life sentence without trial, in a prison known for torture and other abuse, a mere 24 hours after providing an English-only notice form (not provided to any attorney) that gives no information about the person's right to seek judicial review, much less the process or timeline for doing so," the filing reads.
"The government cannot plausibly claim that 12 hours is sufficient notice, which could be the reason they tried to keep it from the public and other courts addressing the notice issue, including the U.S. Supreme Court," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, lead counsel in the case, told Fox News Digital in a statement.
Lora Ries, Director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that she expects these deportation cases to "bounce up and down the court system" as litigants work within the confines the Supreme Court specified in its April 7 opinion.
"For now, the Supreme Court is relying on, if there's going to be a habeas suit, it's going to be in the U.S. District Court and then that judge is going to have to rule," Ries explained. "And I'm sure there will be appeals and some or all of it may end up back at the Supreme Court."
Aronberg noted that due process procedures may vary across the district courts as they juggle the various lawsuits. However, both he and Ries said the issue will likely end up in the high court's hands once again.
"It is possible that some courts require notice to be in writing and in the native language of the deportee, whereas others could possibly accept less stringent notice requirements," Aronberg said. "Ultimately, it will lead back to the Supreme Court to dictate what is required."
Ries also said that proceedings will differ in non-AEA cases, saying individuals sought to be removed in those contexts would undergo different types of removals.
"Immigration proceedings are civil proceedings. So you are not innocent until proven guilty," Reis said. "It doesn't apply here. You don't have a right to a public defender. You can have a deportation immigration attorney, but you, the taxpayer, is not paying for it like a public defender."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
27 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump's military parade was a 'beautiful celebration of America': Lara Trump
All times eastern Legends & Lies: The Real West Legends & Lies: The Real West Legends & Lies: The Real West Legends & Lies: The Real West FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: President Trump participates in G7 session with world leaders
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Here's what's in the Senate GOP's version of Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
The Senate Finance Committee on Monday unveiled its portion of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' containing provisions on Medicaid, taxes and green energy tax credits. The committee's text is the final piece of the upper chamber's version of the bill to be released, and was the most highly anticipated. It contains some of the thorniest provisions that Senate GOP holdouts have expressed concerns about, and the issues that could set the upper chamber on a collision course with the House. The House narrowly passed its version of the legislation last month. Here's what's in the Senate's bill. The bill makes many of the core elements of their 2017 tax cuts permanent but scales back additional cuts from what the House passed. The Senate bill locks in existing federal tax brackets, boosts the standard deduction and maintains the termination of personal exemptions — all without sunsets. In contrast with the House version, the bill sets a lower increase for the child tax credit, raising it to $2,200 per child as opposed to the House's $2,500. The bill creates new deductions for taxes on tips, overtime pay and car loan interest — a priority of Trump's that he campaigned on — but doesn't make them fully deductible. Tips are deductible up to $25,000 through 2028. Overtime pay is deductible up to $12,500, or $25,000 for joint filers, through 2028. Auto loan interest is deductible up to $10,000, also through 2028. Senate Republicans are taking a bigger swing at Medicaid in their version of the bill. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Non-expansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. Limiting provider taxes is a long-held conservative goal, as they argue states are gaming the current system and driving up federal Medicaid spending. The policies are designed to inflate Medicaid spending on paper to allow states to receive more federal reimbursement dollars. The Senate bill also cuts certain existing state-directed payments to hospitals, which would be a significant hit to the hospitals' bottom line. The House version in contrast limited future payments but grandfathered existing arrangements. The change in the Senate bill is sure to anger Republicans who were already expressing concerns about the impact of the freeze in the House-passed version, including key holdouts like Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Provider taxes have become an important lifeline for hospitals, and rural hospitals would be hit hardest by the cuts. Hawley on Monday night signaled dissatisfaction with the newly unveiled text. Like the House bill, the Senate legislation imposes work requirements on Medicaid beneficiaries beginning at 19 years old. But the Senate version says adults with dependent children older than 14 will also have to prove they work, attend school or perform community service for 80 hours a month, while the House-passed version would exempt all adults with dependent children. The bill includes changes to green energy tax credits that are more flexible than those passed by the House — but would still be a significant rollback. The Senate text appears to eliminate the most stringent provision in the House bill, deleting a measure that would have required climate-friendly energy sources to start construction within 60 days of the bill's enactment to qualify for the credits at all. Instead, things such as solar panels and wind farms would need to begin construction this year in order to receive the full credit amount. Projects that begin construction in 2026 would get 60 percent of the credit, while projects that begin construction in 2027 would receive 20 percent. Projects constructed in 2028 or later would not be eligible for the credit. This, too, appears to be more flexible than the House text, which required projects to not just start construction but actually be producing electricity by the end of 2028 to qualify for the credit. Nevertheless, the Senate provisions are still a major rollback of the tax credits passed by Democrats in their 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Under that law, the credits would have lasted until either 2032 or when U.S. emissions from the electric sector are 25 percent lower than their 2022 levels, whichever came later. The Senate text also adds carve-outs for hydro, nuclear and geothermal power, allowing them to receive the full credit if they begin construction before 2034. The Senate bill as drafted would keep the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions at $10,000 a year, rolling back the deal that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) painstakingly cut with blue state Republicans to raise the limit on SALT deductions to $40,000 a year for households earning less than $500,000 annually. It would permanently extend the $10,000 cap, which is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters Monday afternoon that the $10,000 deduction cap is a 'marker' for talks with House Republicans, and that they will find a number in the middle that satisfies both camps. But the House's SALT Caucus Republicans are insisting on the $40,000 number. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), a key member of the group, wrote on the social platform X that the proposal was 'DEAD ON ARRIVAL' and warned in a statement that a $40,000 deduction cap 'is the deal and I will not accept a penny less.' The bill would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, instead of the $4 trillion increase adopted by House Republicans. The debt-ceiling language is a major problem for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has told his leadership he won't support the bill if it includes such a large extension of federal borrowing authority. Mychael Schnell and Al Weaver contributed.
Los Angeles Times
33 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
South L.A. mother deports herself to Mexico amid Trump's immigration crackdown, family says
Amid a surge in raids and forced deportations by federal immigration agents, a South Los Angeles mother deported herself last week to Mexico after living in the U.S. for 36 years, according to her family. The woman's daughter, Julia Ear, recorded the entire experience and posted the video on TikTok. The family drove from Los Angeles to Tijuana on June 7 while demonstrators were taking to the streets in downtown L.A. to protest the Trump administration's immigration crackdown and ongoing raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Ear told CBS News that her mother, Regina Higuera, 51, chose to self-deport after seeing the increase in immigration raids and deciding that she didn't want to be deported against her will. 'She made this decision out of fear,' Ear said. While fear is a motivator for some, the Trump administration has also offered undocumented immigrants $1,000 if they return to their home country voluntarily. Anyone who uses the the Customs and Border Protection Home Mobile App to inform the government that they plan to return home, the department said, would receive a $1,000 payment after their return is confirmed by the government. It is unclear how many people have taken advantage of this program. Higuera's family drove her to the airport in Tijuana, where she took a flight to Mexico City and then drove five hours to Guerrero state, where she plans on retiring. 'With my mom's complicated legal status, she decided to do this in her own terms,' Ear says in the TikTok video. 'She has no criminal record and is a hardworking taxpayer who has been working 12-hour shifts since she was 15, six days out of the week.' Higuera first moved to the U.S. when she was 15 and hadn't seen her mother in 22 years, Ear says in the video. Along with her children, she left behind three grandchildren in the U.S. Her husband was planning to join her in Mexico in a few months. 'She asked me not to cry, to let her go in peace, to take care of myself and not to trust all of these new people I'm meeting,' Ear says in the video. As of early June, around 51,000 undocumented migrants were in ICE custody, the highest number since September 2019.
