The nations federal judges including appointees of presidents of both parties, Donald Trumps among them have been the bulwark against Trumps reign of lawlessness on deportations, spending, federal appointments and more. Repeatedly, lower courts have been standing up for the Constitution and federal law, trying to constrain a president contemptuous of both, at demonstrable danger to themselves. But too often, the administration disregards their orders.
Youd think the Supreme Court in particular Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the overseer of the judicial branch would have the lower courts backs. But no, as the high courts conservative majority shamefully showed in a ruling on Monday.
That decision in one of many deportation challenges wasnt the courts first such display of deference to a president who doesnt reciprocate. And, safe bet, it wont be the last.
The court allowed the Trump administration to at least temporarily continue deporting migrants to countries not their own, unsafe ones at that, with little or no notice and no chance to legally argue that they could face torture or worse. No matter that lives are at stake the justices blithely lifted an injunction by Judge Brian E. Murphy, of the U.S. District Court in Boston, that had blocked the administrations slapdash deportations while legal challenges wend through the courts.
In a blistering 19-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, marshaled legal arguments, damning examples of Trump administration dissembling and defiance of lower courts, and warnings of more defiance of federal courts from an emboldened president.
In contrast, the ruling from the Supreme Court majority was just one paragraph unsigned legal mumbo-jumbo, its decision wholly unexplained, as is typical in the cases that the court takes all too frequently on an emergency basis, the aptly named shadow docket. (In two other shadow docket rulings in May, Trump was allowed to revoke the legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, Cubans, Nicaraguans and Haitians, many of whom were here under programs created to protect refugees from violent, impoverished and repressive countries. Why? Who knows?)
Whats all the more maddening about the Supreme Courts opacity in overriding both Judge Murphy and an appeals court that backed him is that its preliminary support for Trump in this case contradicts the plain language of the justices unanimous ruling in April that people subject to deportation are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.
Fire up the deportation planes, crowed a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security Department.
Such callous gloating surely didnt surprise Sotomayor. Her dissent began, In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach. And so did her conservative colleagues.
As Sotomayor wrote, historically the Supreme Court stays a lower court order only under extraordinary circumstances. Typically it doesnt grant relief when, as in this case, both district and appeals courts opposed it. And certainly it doesnt give the government a W when the record in the case, like this one, is replete with evidence of its misconduct, including openly flouting court orders.
Examples: A judge agreed a Guatemalan gay man would face torture in his home country, yet the man was deported there anyway. The administration violated Judge Murphys order when it put six men on a plane to civil-war-torn South Sudan, which the U.S. considers so unsafe that only its most critical personnel remain there. And in a third case, a group was unlawfully bound to Libya before a federal judge was able to halt the flight.
Thus, Sotomayor said, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration relief from an order it has repeatedly defied an order that didnt prohibit deportations but only required due process in advance.
As she put it, the decision to stay the order was a gross abuse of the justices discretion. It undermines the rule of law as fully as the Trump administrations lawlessness, especially given that Americans look to the nations highest court as the last word on the law.
This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last, Sotomayor said. As if on cue, the Supreme Courts decision was followed on Tuesday by news that underscored just how dangerously misplaced the conservative justices deference toward Trump is.
A former Justice Department official, who was fired for truthfully testifying in court that Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia had been wrongly deported to El Salvador, blew the whistle on his former colleagues all Trump appointees confirming in a 27-page document that theyd connived to defy court orders. Emil Bove, Trumps former defense lawyer and now his nominee for a federal appeals court seat, allegedly advised a group of DOJ lawyers in March to tell the courts f you if when they tried to stop Trumps deportations. Bove on Wednesday told the Senate he had no recollection of saying that; he might have denied it, as a DOJ associate did to the media, but Bove was under oath.
And the alleged phrase captures the administrations attitude toward the judiciary, a coequal branch of government, though youd hardly know it by the justices kowtowing to the executive branch. The message, while more profane, matches Trumps own take on lower-court judges. The Judges are absolutely out of control, he posted in May. Hopefully, the Supreme Court of the United States will put an END to the quagmire.
For the sake of courageous judges who follow the law, and the rest of us, we can hope otherwise even if the justices early record is mixed at best.
@Jackiekcalmes @jackiecalmes.bsky.social @jkcalmes
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The Supreme Courts decision to allow deportations to third countries without adequate due process is a dangerous display of deference to an administration with a documented history of defying court orders, endangering lives by potentially exposing deportees to torture [1] [2] .
- This ruling contradicts the Courts own precedent requiring notice and opportunity to challenge removal, instead opting for unexplained shadow docket decisions that lack transparency and judicial accountability [4] .
- The Trump administrations pattern of disregarding lower court injunctionssuch as attempting deportations to active conflict zones like South Sudandemonstrates contempt for judicial oversight, a stance tacitly endorsed by the Supreme Courts intervention [2] [3] .
- Justice Sotomayors dissent emphasizes that the majority prioritized executive convenience over constitutional safeguards, noting the administrations repeated defiance of court orders designed to prevent torture [1] [2] .
Different views on the topic
- The Supreme Courts stay of the district court order is a necessary affirmation of executive authority, allowing DHS to deport criminal noncitizens whose home countries refuse repatriationa critical tool for national security [3] .
- District court injunctions like Judge Murphys imposed unprecedented procedural hurdles that obstructed the removal of convicted criminals (including murderers and child rapists), risking their release into U.S. communities [3] [2] .
- Third-country removals are lawful and essential to address immigration crises exacerbated by previous administrations, with the Supreme Courts intervention preventing judicial overreach into executive enforcement discretion [3] [4] .
- The government contends that lower courts exceeded their authority by mandating extended notice periods and screening processes, which delayed deportations of individuals already subject to final removal orders [2] [3] .
