Jonathan Turley says he’s ‘confused’ why Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices in SCOTUS’ deportation ruling

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley expressed confusion Tuesday about why Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented from a ruling allowing President Donald Trump to use a 1798 law to deport gang members.

The Supreme Court ruled late Monday that the Trump administration could use the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) in a 5-4 decision. Turley questioned why Barrett joined Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson in their dissent to the majority’s opinion.

“The dissent is a little bit odd here, these four justices, particularly Justice Barrett. [I] wrote on my blog this morning, I still don’t quite know why Barrett joined the dissent,” Turley said. “She joined a small part of it. Part of that was saying they get due process rights, but the majority said that. So I’m still rather confused as why Justice Barrett dissented.”

WATCH:

“I’m sure Donald Trump is as well,” “America’s Newsroom” guest co-host John Roberts said, chuckling.

“There is every reason to question the majority’s hurried conclusion that habeas relief supplies the exclusive means to challenge removal under the Alien Enemies Act,” Sotomayor wrote in a portion of the dissent that Barrett joined.

United States District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia issued an injunction on March 15 ordering the Trump administration to turn two planes carrying members of the Venezuelan gang to El Salvador around. Trump issued several executive orders to address illegal immigration and border security, including designating Mexican drug cartels, TdA and MS-13, an El Salvadoran prison gang, as foreign terrorist organizations upon taking office on Jan. 20.

Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to speed up the deportations of gang members.

Earlier Turley noted that district judges like Boasberg had been ignoring signals from the high court about the use of nationwide injunctions and “forum-shopping.”

“Even liberal justices have complained, you can’t run a government like this. You can’t have endless lilliputian attacks of over 600 judges holding up the business of the government,” Turley said. “Congress is moving on that. But also the Supreme Court has been clear for years, a majority on the Supreme Court has been stating in oral arguments, particularly, this has got to stop, it’s just that these judges are not listening.”

Chief Justice John Roberts also paused a Friday order by United States District Judge Paula Xinis requiring the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia, an adjudicated member of the El Salvadoran prison gang MS-13, to the United States.

Latest posts by Harold Hutchison (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.