The American government can use the eighteenth century law to deport immigrants, says the Supreme Court

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use the eighteenth -century war law to deport Venezuelan immigrants, but said that they should obtain a hearing of the court before taking them from the United States.

In a bitterly divided decision, the court said that the administration must give the Venezuelan who claim to be a “reasonable time” gang to go to the court.

But the conservative majority said that the legal challenges should take place in Texas, instead of a courtroom in Washington.

The court’s actions seem to prevent the administration from resuming flights last month that carried hundreds of migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The flights came shortly after US President Donald Trump summoned the law of foreign enemies (AEA) for the first time since World War II to justify the deportation in light of a presidential declaration calling for the Trine de Arago gang.

The majority did not say anything about those trips, which took off without offering the hearing to the judges now that it is necessary.

In the opposition, the three liberal judges said that the administration has sought to avoid judicial review in this case and the court “is now rewarding the government for its behavior.” Judge Amy Kony Barrett joined parts of the opposition.

Judge Sonia Sotomior said it would be difficult for people to challenge the deportation individually, wherever they are detained, and indicated that the administration also said in another case before the court that it is unable to return the people who were deported to El Salvador’s prison by mistake.

“We, as a nation and the court of law, must be better than this,” she wrote.

Judges acted based on the emergency appeal of the administration after the Federal Appeal Court in Washington left a matter that prohibits the migrants accused temporarily that they are members of the gang under the rarely used AEA.

“Despite all the opponents’ speech,” the court wrote in an uneasy opinion, and the Supreme Court order confirms that the detainees who are subject to removal orders under AEA are entitled to note and an opportunity to challenge their removal. “

Rising tension

The case has become a flash point amid the escalating tension between the White House and the federal courts. This is the second time in less than a week, as the majority of conservative judges handed over Trump at least a partial victory in the resumption of emergency after the lower courts prevented parts of his agenda.

There are several other suspended cases, including Trump’s plan to reject citizenship for children born in the United States illegally.

Trump praised the court for its action.

“The Supreme Court has supported the rule of law in our nation by allowing a president, whatever that is, to be able to secure our borders, protect our families and our country, which is a great day for justice in America!” In fact, he wrote on his social site.

Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit on behalf of five non -concessions who were detained in Texas, hours after the announcement of the announcement, while immigration authorities were the shepherds of hundreds of migrants to the aircraft.

“The critical point” of the Ruling of the Supreme Court is that people must be allowed to legal procedures to challenge their removal. “This is an important victory,” he said.

Boasberg imposed a temporary stop on deportations and also ordered the cancellation of Venezuelan immigrants to return to the United States that has not occurred. The judge held a session last week on whether the government defied his order to change the aircraft. The administration captured the “state secrets concession” and refused to give boasberg any additional information about deportation.

Trump and his allies have called for isolation of Pasperg. in A rare statement“The dismissal is not an appropriate response to the dispute regarding a judicial decision,” said senior judge John Roberts.