The Court ruled that deportations under the Alien Enemies Act have, historically, "largely been precluded from judicial review," so the judges who keep claiming they have jurisdiction are wrong and asserting power they just don't have.
The court allows that there is some possible relief for a claimed false deportation, but that relief must come by way of a habeas corpus petition, not a TRO filed in a district court.
The Court specifically mentions venue. In a habeas filing, the court with jurisdiction is a court with jurisdiction over the physical part of the country that the person is actually being detained in. So someone detained in Texas must file a habeas petition with a Texas court.
They cannot just keeping filing TRO's in the packed-and-stacked leftwing DC courts.
That's a big deal. Most cases will heard by less partisan courts.
I'm still waiting for the Sudden Twitter Experts to tell me the difference between a TRO hearing and habeas corpus hearing. Some have noted that the Sudden Twitter Expertise in egg prices have exchanged that for a Sudden Twitter Expertise in tariffs. I'm sure that some will quickly cash that out for a Sudden Twitter Expertise in habeas petitions.
I think one big difference is that a habeas petition can't result in "emergency" relief before an actual hearing on the merits. In other words, relief can only be had once you've actually proven your case in a hearing. A judge can't just say "Well I think that when we have the hearing you'll probably win so here's your Emergency Temporary Relief in the meantime," which is the rule behind all of these emergency temporary restraining orders.
This certainly seems like this will sharply limit judicial activism on this front.
But I do await the Sudden Twitter Experts on Habeas Corpus Hearings for confirmation.
The decision was 5-4.
Guess who joined the leftists, again?
