The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to review a restraining order that temporarily blocks its use of an 18th century wartime immigration law to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua, from U.S. soil.
In the filing, lawyers for the Trump administration said that the lower court’s orders have “rebuffed” Trump’s immigration agenda, including its ability “to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations.”
The request for Supreme Court intervention comes shortly after the DC. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Wednesday to uphold a lower court’s decision that temporarily blocked the administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act law to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals. That decision paused the Trump administration’s use of the law for a 14-day period to allow the judge time to review the merits of the case.
The Trump administration had vowed it would appeal the circuit court decision the Supreme Court for further review. In their Supreme Court filing, U.S. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said the lower court’s “flawed” orders “threaten the government’s sensitive negotiations with foreign powers,” and risk “serious and perhaps irreparable harm if not immediately reviewed” by the nation’s highest court.
At minimum, the Trump administration said, the Supreme Court should grant an administrative stay, which would allow them to continue using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals while the court considers the government’s orders.
They also sharply criticized the appeals court’s decision handed down Wednesday. Writing for the 2-1 majority in the appeals court decision, U.S. Circuit Court Judges Karen Henderson, a Bush appointee, and Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, focused heavily on concerns of due process violations, as well as complaints of immediate and irreparable harm cited by the plaintiffs.
Allowing Trump to use the law in the near-term “risks exiling plaintiffs to a land that is not their country of origin,” Henderson said in a concurring opinion siding with the lower court judge. “The equities favor the plaintiffs,” Henderson said. “And the district court entered the TROs for a quintessentially valid purpose: to protect its remedial authority long enough to consider the parties’ arguments.
Millett, for her part, said that siding with the Trump administration would “moot the Plaintiffs’ claims by immediately removing them beyond the reach of their lawyers or the court.” Lawyers for the Trump administration also used the Supreme Court filing to criticize the growing trend of temporary restraining orders and injunctions blocking key policies, calling the lower court’s ruling part of a “rule-by-TRO” pattern. Harris argued this approach has become so common that “the Executive Branch’s basic functions are in peril.”
In the two months since Inauguration Day, district courts have issued more than 40 injunctions or TROs against the Executive Branch, they noted in the filing. The Trump administration continued to rail against the lower court decisions, which White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described to Fox News on Wednesday as an “unauthorized infringement” on the president’s authority.
The administration “will act swiftly to seek Supreme Court review to vindicate the president’s authority, defend the Constitution, and Make America Safe Again,” Leavitt added. This is a breaking news story. Check back shortly for updates.
