TLDR: the court is saying that the government needs to stop fucking around. The Supreme Court says that these folks get time to challenge their removal, and therefore the government must give them a reasonable amount of time.
It also says that if the government can establish that this guy is covered by the president’s proclamation, he most certainly can be removed under the Alien Enemies Act.
That was my reading as well, although like a lot of things lately I find myself stumbling onto these issues where something that seems minor, it eventually ends up not being so minor. Or something that seems like a meaningless distinction is in fact a meaningful one.
My initial thought about invoking the AEA was that it was absurd and overreaching. That the executive doesn't really need to invoke it to deport someone as long as there's due process etc. Then when I read this decision, I thought "well, yes, if all these conditions are met, it seems reasonable that someone can be removed under the AEA. It's kind of a moot point either way."
Where this gets tricky is that it seems now as if you agree that the AEA is a legitimate basis for deportation, that there is in fact an "invasion" from this gang, then you find yourself stepping into another argument, that habeas corpus can be suspended, because there's an invasion:
It's this typical chain of reasoning lately where if you let one argument slide, you're opening yourself up to another argument that then seems less reasonable, and calls into question the earlier argument. Suspension of habeas corpus doesn't necessarily follow from the AEA invocation, but I think if you accept the argument that there is in fact an "invasion", and accept that per se is legitimate grounds for deportation, it's more difficult to argue against suspension of habeas corpus because you've lost the basic argument there is no actual invasion and the AEA has been invoked inappropriately.
It's pretty clear the judge is confirming the other rulings about due process etc., but by accepting the AEA as a legitimate basis, they're opening up a much bigger can of worms it seems.
I read the whole thing.
TLDR: the court is saying that the government needs to stop fucking around. The Supreme Court says that these folks get time to challenge their removal, and therefore the government must give them a reasonable amount of time.
It also says that if the government can establish that this guy is covered by the president’s proclamation, he most certainly can be removed under the Alien Enemies Act.
That was my reading as well, although like a lot of things lately I find myself stumbling onto these issues where something that seems minor, it eventually ends up not being so minor. Or something that seems like a meaningless distinction is in fact a meaningful one.
My initial thought about invoking the AEA was that it was absurd and overreaching. That the executive doesn't really need to invoke it to deport someone as long as there's due process etc. Then when I read this decision, I thought "well, yes, if all these conditions are met, it seems reasonable that someone can be removed under the AEA. It's kind of a moot point either way."
Where this gets tricky is that it seems now as if you agree that the AEA is a legitimate basis for deportation, that there is in fact an "invasion" from this gang, then you find yourself stepping into another argument, that habeas corpus can be suspended, because there's an invasion:
https://reason.com/2025/05/13/since-immigration-is-an-invasi...
It's this typical chain of reasoning lately where if you let one argument slide, you're opening yourself up to another argument that then seems less reasonable, and calls into question the earlier argument. Suspension of habeas corpus doesn't necessarily follow from the AEA invocation, but I think if you accept the argument that there is in fact an "invasion", and accept that per se is legitimate grounds for deportation, it's more difficult to argue against suspension of habeas corpus because you've lost the basic argument there is no actual invasion and the AEA has been invoked inappropriately.
It's pretty clear the judge is confirming the other rulings about due process etc., but by accepting the AEA as a legitimate basis, they're opening up a much bigger can of worms it seems.
This order appears to break with other jurisdictions' resolutions of the issue.