By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvadoran prison before they could challenge their deportation. This late-night intervention, a highly unusual rebuke, stemmed from the administration’s alleged violation of a previous court order and its deceptive actions toward multiple courts. The Court’s swift action, bypassing lower courts and even a dissenting justice’s full opinion, suggests a lack of trust in the administration’s claims. The 7-2 vote, including Chief Justice Roberts and other typically more conservative justices, signals a potential shift in the Court’s approach towards the administration’s actions.
Read the original article here
The Supreme Court’s late-night rebuke to the Trump administration is extraordinary, not only for its speed and decisiveness but also for its implicit condemnation of the administration’s actions. The court acted with unprecedented haste, issuing its order before a dissenting opinion could be fully drafted, highlighting the urgency of the situation and the court’s deep distrust of the administration’s claims. This break from established protocol underscores the gravity of the situation and the court’s determination to prevent what it perceived as an imminent violation of due process.
The court’s lack of confidence in the administration’s assurances is palpable. Had the justices believed the administration’s claims that no deportations would occur without due process, they likely would have allowed the lower courts to handle the matter. Instead, the immediate intervention suggests a strong belief that the administration would disregard any legal restraints and proceed with deportations, a fear reinforced by past instances of the administration lying to courts to circumvent legal orders. This rapid response, bypassing the usual process, speaks volumes about the Supreme Court’s assessment of the administration’s credibility and trustworthiness.
The 7-2 vote, indicated by the fact that only Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, is equally remarkable. This alignment of justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, demonstrates a significant shift in the court’s approach towards the administration. Previously, these justices often gave the president narrow wins on procedural grounds, avoiding direct confrontation. This late-night decision signifies a clear break from that pattern, a willingness to directly challenge the administration’s actions, and a potential indication of a growing concern among even conservative justices about the administration’s disregard for the rule of law.
The unusual circumstances surrounding the dissenting opinion further highlight the exceptional nature of the situation. The fact that Justice Alito’s dissent was incomplete at the time of the majority opinion’s release, leading to an unusual statement indicating a forthcoming full dissent, points to a possible power struggle within the court. The majority’s decision to publish the opinion before Alito could finalize his dissent strongly suggests an attempt to prevent Alito from delaying or undermining their action. This internal dynamic, while unprecedented, serves to further emphasize the severity of the situation and the justices’ determination to act swiftly and decisively.
Beyond the immediate legal implications, the Supreme Court’s action carries significant political weight. The rebuke sends a strong message not only to the administration but also to Congress. The unprecedented nature of the intervention suggests a deep concern about the executive branch’s actions and the potential erosion of checks and balances. It could potentially influence congressional Republicans, reminding them of the court’s role in upholding the rule of law and potentially influencing their stance on impeachment proceedings. However, the long-term effectiveness of this rebuke remains to be seen, as the administration may still choose to ignore the ruling, raising concerns about the limits of judicial power in the face of executive disregard.
The situation underscores a fundamental weakness inherent in the American system of checks and balances: the Supreme Court lacks the power to enforce its own rulings. Its decisions rely on the cooperation of the executive branch for implementation. This inherent limitation leaves the court’s actions vulnerable to executive overreach and raises profound questions about the efficacy of the judicial branch in protecting against executive overreach, especially when the executive branch openly shows contempt for judicial authority. The Supreme Court’s actions, while dramatic, are only a temporary reprieve, as the question of enforcement remains unresolved and the potential for future executive overreach continues to loom. This reliance on the good faith of other branches of government to uphold the law casts doubt on the ability of the judicial branch to serve as a truly effective check on executive power. The ultimate success of this rebuke hinges on whether the executive branch will respect the court’s ruling, something that, given the administration’s past actions, is far from certain.