Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar has expressed her concerns regarding the current situation in the United States, stating that the nation is “getting closer and closer to a constitutional crisis.” This announcement comes on the heels of a deeply controversial Supreme Court decision. That ruling blocked the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans, who had been ordered to the Bluebonnet detention center in North Texas. The Court’s decision has raised a firestorm of criticism over the Court’s power to act this way and what the broad implications are for due process.
The U.S. Supreme Court acted on an emergency appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They chose to stay deportations until the lower courts have an opportunity to rule on the merits. Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, criticized the Court’s actions, highlighting that it issued an unprecedented and legally questionable relief within eight hours of receiving the application. As noted in the dissent, this is a very significant point. The Court had not ordered, nor had it received, a response from the Government concerning the applicants’ factual assertions or legal issues.
Justice Alito underscored the lack of adequate procedural safeguards, stating, “The only papers before this Court were those submitted by the applicants.” He stressed that the Court had no Government opposition from any of the lower courts. This curious absence is particularly troubling given the fairness and legitimacy of the decision in question.
Klobuchar’s worry is representative of larger fears about what these expanded summary legal decisions could mean. Alito went on to say that the seven-member majority had acted “truly in the dead of night.” In addition, he chastised their actions as “hasty and prematurely granted.” Legal experts and civil rights lawmakers are rightfully outraged at this proposed criticism. They’re concerned that it would undermine judicial norms and undermine checks on executive power.
The Supreme Court couldn’t have been any clearer in its order. Specifically, it bans the removal of Venezuelans being held in the Bluebonnet detention center until further order from the court. Legal issues Alito stressed that the applicants did not demonstrate they were in “imminent threat of removal.” We agree that this absence of positive proof is likely to erode the showing required to establish that the Court should intervene on an emergency basis.
The Trump administration has spun deporting those whom ICE has determined to be gang members as lawful. They support this argument on the grounds that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This complex legal framework has recently been challenged as states, community organizations, and other stakeholders ask whether this legal framework supports current immigration enforcement practices.
Her comments were the showstopper of the day. Perhaps the most powerful moment came from Judge Alito’s dissent. It underscores the potential harm that comes from quickly made judicial decisions taken with little consideration or input from stakeholders. He stated, “In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order.”
Alito made clear his own strong opposition to the Court’s order. He pointed out that there was no urgent need for them to take such a hasty action. “I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate,” he said.
This decision marks the end of much more than immediate deportations. It poses important questions about judicial process and executive power in regard to immigration matters. First, Senator Klobuchar draws attention to the threat of a constitutional crisis. Yet, it’s still unclear how this will play out, and what steps we will take to address these immediate legal crises.