Justice Samuel Alito Accuses Supreme Court of Taking 'Shortcut'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas took issue with the Supreme Court's opinion issued on Friday in regards to the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), saying the court has no authority to issue the kind of relief his colleagues approved.
Alito accused his fellow justices of "a mischaracterization" of events leading up to the request for injunctive relief and offered a reinterpretation of those events. He stressed that in his view, "the Federal Rules do not permit such a shortcut" in regards to how the court certified a class of plaintiffs to resist the AEA use.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email on Friday afternoon.
Why It Matters
President Donald Trump has made mass deportations a centerpiece policy of his second administration. He promised to enact those deportations upon taking office, and had much public backing to do so, according to polling at the time.
However, he has faced legal gridlock on various aspects of his efforts, including his use of the 1798 AEA. Trump used the act to target alleged members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which his administration has designated as a terrorist organization.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas are pictured at the conclusion of the inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20 in Washington, D.C.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas are pictured at the conclusion of the inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20 in Washington, D.C.What To Know
The Supreme Court in April issued an 11th-hour injunction blocking the administration's use of the AEA on certain persons in order to better consider the case. The court on Friday then issued a full opinion on the matter, in which the justices argued that the administration must provide greater notice than 24 hours that it intends to deport someone under the act.
Alito dissented from the per curiam opinion (meaning the opinion was issued from the court as a whole rather than a particular justice as the author), with only Thomas joining him in dissent.
Part of Alito's dissent took issue with the class of Venezuelan migrants at question, accusing his fellow justices of preferring to "ignore the important step of class certification and skip directly to the adjudication of the class members' rights."
"The Federal Rules do not permit such a shortcut," Alito wrote, separately noting in his dissent that the case of the two individuals—identified as A.A.R.P. or W.M.M.—have key differences from the putative class at the heart of the case, and continued to take issue with how the court has treated class certification and qualification.
"Instead of merely ruling on the application that is before us—which asks for emergency relief pending appeal—the Court takes the unusual step of granting certiorari before judgment, summarily vacating the judgment below dismissing the applicants' appeal, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals with directions regarding the issues that court should address," Alito wrote.
"From the Court's order, it is not entirely clear whether the Court has silently decided issues that go beyond the question of interim relief," he wrote, adding, "(I certainly hope that it has not.) But if it has done so, today's order is doubly extraordinary."
He concluded: "If the Court has gone beyond that question, it has blazed a new
trail. It has plucked a case from a district court and decided important issues in the first instance. To my eyes, that looks far too much like an expansion of our original jurisdiction," saying that he "must therefore respectfully dissent."
What People Are Saying
Trump wrote on Truth Social: "The Supreme Court has just ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally, are not allowed to be forced out without going through a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person, and one that will allow these people to commit many crimes before they even see the inside of a Courthouse. The result of this decision will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public. It will also encourage other criminals to illegally enter our Country, wreaking havoc and bedlam wherever they go. The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do. Sleepy Joe Biden allowed MILLIONS of Criminal Aliens to come into our Country without any "PROCESS" but, in order to get them out of our Country, we have to go through a long and extended PROCESS. In any event, thank you to Justice Alito and Justice Thomas for attempting to protect our Country. This is a bad and dangerous day for America!"
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to consider appropriate procedures on how to properly alert potential deportees of their impending removal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Exclusive: Israel's Herzog Reacts to US Strikes—'Have to Defend Ourselves'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The international community ignored Iran's major underground nuclear facility of Fordow for years, Israeli President Isaac Herzog told Newsweek in an exclusive interview following U.S. strikes against three nuclear sites in central Iran overnight. The Fordow nuclear facility, roughly 60 miles south of Tehran, was secret until 2009. Then-U.S. President Barack Obama said at the time it had jointly told the United Nations' (U.N.) nuclear watchdog that Iran had for years secretly built up a nuclear site near the city of Qom. Referencing the former president's words more than a decade-and-a-half ago, Herzog said Obama "exposed" the existence of Fordow, "but then the world let it happen." "It's ridiculous," Herzog said. "The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] declared that they're non-compliant, and they're lying," the Israeli president added. "And the world says, 'Okay, what? What do we do about it?'" Referring to Israel, he continued: "Well, we have to defend ourselves, and we remove it." The U.S. launched strikes on Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz—three of Iran's most significant nuclear sites—early Sunday local time, dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer." Major U.S. allies expressed support for the American strikes on Sunday while urging Iran not to respond. Tehran had promised retaliation and "irreparable damage" if the U.S. attacked its nuclear facilities prior to the strikes. Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, on Sunday warned of "everlasting consequences" for what he termed "outrageous" U.S. attacks. The U.S. entry into the war came after Israel carried out what it called a "pre-emptive" campaign against Tehran's nuclear sites and personnel, as well as its ballistic missile and other military sites. Israel said Iran was getting close to having a nuclear weapon, which the U.S., and many of America's allies, have said is unacceptable. However, Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. Israeli President Isaac Herzog visits a residential building struck by a missile launched from Iran, in Petah Tikva, Israel, on June 16. Israeli President Isaac Herzog visits a residential building struck by a missile launched from Iran, in Petah Tikva, Israel, on June 16. Associated Press Iran launched waves of drone and missiles at Israel shortly after. Both Israel and Iran continued their attacks following U.S. strikes. President Donald Trump hailed the strikes on Fordow, as well as the facilities at Natanz and Isfahan, as a "spectacular military success." "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated," he added. Israel, while not pursuing Fordow, has for over a week carried out extensive airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites, including Isfahan and Natanz, and killed a litany of senior nuclear scientists and generals. The U.S. military's B-2 Spirit bombers, equipped with "bunker busting" GBU-57/B bombs weighing in at 30,000 pounds, were widely considered the only pairing able to take Fordow, buried deep under a mountain, out of the equation. A U.S. submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles against the aboveground facilities at Isfahan around 5 p.m. ET on Saturday, just before U.S. aircraft entered Iranian airspace, General Dan Caine, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, said on Sunday. Washington used deception tactics and a host of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft traveling ahead of B-2 heavy bombers to sweep for Iranian fighter jets and air defenses, Caine added. At 6:40 p.m. ET, the first B-2 dropped two GBU-57/B bombs at Fordow, followed by another site, the top general said. The rest of the munitions were dropped in the following 25 minutes, and Iran did not fire at U.S. aircraft traveling in or out of Iran, Caine added. Experts and officials said on Sunday it was too early to tell exactly how much damage has been done to Iran's network of nuclear sites. Preliminary assessments indicate all three facilities sustained "extremely severe damage," Caine said. In a Sunday afternoon Truth Social post, Trump pushed back against criticism from Republican lawmaker Thomas Massie of Kentucky, asserting that the U.S. had effectively "taken the 'bomb'" away from Iran by targeting the three nuclear sites. Massie has said that Trump needed congressional approval to launch the aerial attack. During an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting requested by Iran, Secretary-General António Guterres appealed for urgent action to halt the violence and revive negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. "We cannot—and must not—give up on peace," Guterres said, calling for a verifiable agreement with full access for U.N. nuclear inspectors to rebuild trust. Stressing the stakes, he warned that the world faces a clear choice between the path of escalation and that of diplomacy. "We know which path is right," he declared.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Hits Back at Republican Thomas Massie: 'Not MAGA'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump launched a scathing attack on Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, declaring the Republican congressman is "not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is" on Truth Social following Massie's criticism of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Newsweek reached out to Massie's office via email on Sunday for comment. What It Matters Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. Taking to X, formerly Twitter, after Trump announced the strikes, Massie said, "This is not Constitutional." The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. What To Know Massie and Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution last Tuesday in a bid to curb Trump's ability to escalate tensions with Iran. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported. Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna added. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." The resolution has garnered support from over 40 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. MAGA (Make America Great Again) supporter Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, has even signaled support, emphasizing on X that Americans want domestic priorities addressed "not going into another foreign war." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, endorsed a companion resolution introduced by Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, stating "No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy." House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated: "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional." The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out. Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, arrives to speak to the press outside the US Capitol. Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, arrives to speak to the press outside the US Capitol. ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get." He added: "Iran has killed and maimed thousands of Americans, and even took over the American Embassy in Tehran under the Carter Administration. We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the "bomb" right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!) but, as usual, and despite all of the praise and accolades received, this "lightweight" Congressman is against what was so brilliantly achieved last night in Iran. Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes "NO" on virtually everything put before him (Rand Paul, Jr.), no matter how good something may be. He is disrespectful to our great military, and all that they stand for, not even acknowledging their brilliance and bravery in yesterday's attack, which was a total and complete WIN. Massie should drop his fake act and start putting America First, but he doesn't know how to get there — he doesn't have a clue!" Trump concluded: "He'll undoubtedly vote against the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, even though non-passage means a 68% Tax Increase for everybody, and many things far worse than that. MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague! The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard. MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one. Thank you to our incredible military for the AMAZING job they did last night. It was really SPECIAL!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." Representative Thomas Massie on X, formerly Twitter on Sunday: "I introduced a War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, while Congress was on vacation. We would have had plenty of time to debate and vote on this." What Happens Next? The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits
By Daniel Wiessner (Reuters) -Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits. The ruling upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions. While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service. The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits. Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city. While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired. Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers. "While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.
