AYESHA RASCOE, HOST:
The Supreme Court moved swiftly and in the middle of the night to stop the deportation of a group of Venezuelans being held in Texas. That was in response to an appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union. Later yesterday, the Trump administration filed paperwork asking the court to reconsider, saying the case had been brought by, quote, "radical activists."
We'll turn now to Stephen Vladeck. He teaches law at Georgetown University and writes a newsletter about the Supreme Court called One First. Welcome to the program.
STEPHEN VLADECK: Thanks, Ayesha. Great to be with you.
RASCOE: So what was notable about the court's order - the speed, the early-morning decision?
VLADECK: Both of those things. I mean, I think, Ayesha, the - things had developed very, very quickly on Friday, where you had a group of, as you say, Venezuelan migrants who were being held in the northern district of Texas. So basically, sort of up in the panhandle, where the - they had received information that the government was considering removing them from the country pretty quickly under the statute, the Alien Enemy Act, that the Supreme Court had just two weeks ago, said the Trump administration could use only if it provided notice and only if it provided these immigrants with a chance to challenge their removal in advance. It looked like that wasn't going to happen, which is why we saw the ACLU move so quickly on Friday and why we saw this extraordinary late night intervention from the Supreme Court.
RASCOE: Do you sense that the court is frustrated with the White House?
VLADECK: Yes. I mean, so I think what's striking about Friday night's ruling is that, you know, in the earlier decision back on April 7, the court had actually given the Trump administration a bit of a small win by saying that the cases challenging removals under the Alien Enemy Act had to be brought where individual detainees were held and not in the Washington D.C. Federal District Court. But, you know, Ayesha, those cases have now been brought, and we've now had judges in the southern district of Texas and a judge in Colorado and a judge in New York all say, hey, you can't remove these folks until they get the due process the Supreme Court has required. I think the Supreme Court was quite frustrated with the sense that the Trump administration was appearing to flout the mandate that these folks receive meaningful review before they're removed.
RASCOE: Several conservative justices voted against the president by pausing these deportations. Did you expect that?
VLADECK: So I mean, yes and no, Ayesha. So, you know, the key, I think, to me, is that we had two justices who had voted - or, I guess, three justices who had voted back on April 7 to require these cases to be brought in Texas and elsewhere, who nevertheless voted to block the removals Friday night - so Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. You know, Ayesha, I think, to your prior question, in so far as these three justices were concerned that the Trump administration is, you know, thumbing its nose at the court or at least playing Calvinball, where it just keeps changing the rules as it goes, I think Friday night's order was meant to send a bit of a message. Like, hey, stop. Like, when we said we want these immigrants to receive due process before you remove them, we meant it.
RASCOE: Do you foresee a showdown on this issue between the executive and the judicial branches of government? And what specifically would happen - right? - if the White House does not adhere to these orders?
VLADECK: Yeah, I mean, I think the question, Ayesha, is how much can the White House afford to alienate those three justices in Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh? - 'cause it's not just, you know, this case where they're depending upon the Supreme Court. They're also currently at the Supreme Court asking for permission to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. So, you know, I think there's a showdown looming.
I think the question is, is the Trump administration going to keep trying to play these kinds of linguistic and interpretive games, where it says, oh, well, this order only applied to the northern district of Texas, not the western district of Texas. And if so, do we see increasingly aggressive responses from the Supreme Court along the lines we saw late Friday night - responses that maybe the Trump administration ultimately has no choice but to comply with?
RASCOE: Well, I guess that's the question. Do you see this court stepping up its efforts to rein in the president and maybe rein in some executive power,\? - which has been growing even before Trump, but Trump has kind of kicked it up to a notch.
VLADECK: Yeah, I mean, I think, Ayesha, the verdict is still out on that. I think the one thing we can say about all of the movement we've seen in the Supreme Court in the last couple of weeks is that the justices had been trying to move somewhat gingerly and had been trying to temporize their rulings by not giving Trump everything he asked for but also not just reflexively ruling against him.
What Friday night's ruling, I think, really drives home is that the court was not impressed with the Trump administration's behavior after the April 7 ruling in the Alien Enemy Act case, that the court thought it needed to send a stronger message to the Trump administration. Whether that translates, Ayesha, in other contexts and into other cases remains to be seen. But at least for now, it's a hopeful sign that the Supreme Court's not just going to roll over and let the Trump administration do whatever it wants.
RASCOE: That's Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown Law. Thank you so much for speaking with us.
VLADECK: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
