The US Supreme Court granted an emergency application Monday to stay a federal court’s preliminary injunction on migrant deportations, empowering the Trump administration to remove individuals with little notice.
The ruling removes an April 18 order from the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts that sought to block the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from deporting migrants without providing notice or information on how to exercise due process rights. The Supreme Court stopped the injunction while the case moves through appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The six-justice majority did not elaborate on its order. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that the majority wrongfully interfered with the district court’s decision:
The Due Process Clause represents “the principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules…” By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines that foundational principle. Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers… That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.
Sotomayor was also critical of the court order in light of the District Court’s finding that DHS defied the preliminary injunction when it removed a Guatemalan man to Mexico, despite evidence that the man may suffer serious harm as a result. DHS additionally removed a group of migrants to South Sudan with a few hours’ notice.
The dissenting justice wrote: “The Government’s assertion that these deportations could be reconciled with the injunction is wholly without merit. Notice at 5:45 p.m. for a 9:35 a.m. deportation, provided to a detainee without access to an attorney, plainly does not afford that noncitizen with a reasonable time to seek relief.”
The case embodies ongoing debate in the US about how to divide power between the executive branch and the judiciary. The surge of executive orders issued by the Trump administration has created numerous lawsuits concerning the legality of certain exercises of executive power. On June 14, cities across the US held “No Kings” protests to condemn executive overreach.
Many federal courts have opted to enjoin the administration’s actions while litigation is pending. Legal scholars continue to examine the political and legal implications of allowing appointed judges to oversee the actions of elected officials. Some attack the practice, while others defend it.
Under current First Circuit precedent, a plaintiff can seek a preliminary injunction from a federal court if they can show they are likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equity tips in their favor, and that the injunction is in the public interest.
