The Supreme Court lifts the Block of the Lower Court over Venezuelan deportation

The Supreme Court decided on Monday evening that the Trump administration could continue to complete the Venezuelan migrants based on a war powers law in order to lift a temporary judicial court that had temporarily stopped the deportations.

The decision marks a victory for the Trump government, although the decision is tight and focused on the right place for the cases and not on the use of a centuries-old law by the administration to justify their decision to send the Planeleloads of Venezolans to El Salvador with little to non-proper procedure.

The judges did not deal with the question of whether the Trump administration did not properly classify the Venezuelans according to the law on Alien -and found that the migrants found their deportations in Washington, DC, that the migrants in Texas in which they had been held, the challenges should have imposed.

“The prisoners are locked up in Texas, so that the event location in the Columbia district is inappropriate,” says the order of the court, which was briefly and not signed, as is the case with such emergency applications.

In a match, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh emphasized that the judges agree that migrants should receive a judicial review, but they are divided where the case should be heard.

“As the court emphasizes, the court’s disagreement is not about whether the prisoners have checked their transfers – all nine members of the court agree that the review of the judicial review is available,” wrote Justice Kavanaugh. “The only question is where this judicial review should occur.”

The case may be the best known of the eight emergency applications that Trump administration has so far submitted to the Supreme Court and presents a direct collision between the judicial and executive branches.

The administration had asked the judges to use their efforts to use the Anien Enemies Act from 1798 in order to deport more than 100 Venezolans to a prison in El Salvador.

The administration claims that the migrants are all members of Tren de Aragua, a violent street gang that is rooted in Venezuela, and that their removals are permitted as part of the law that the presidential authority held or concludes the citizens of the enemy nations. The President can enter the United States in times of the “War War” or if a foreign government enters the United States.

On March 14th, President Trump signed a proclamation that aimed at Tren de Aragua and claimed that there was an “invasion” and an “predatory idea” when he called the War Act. In the proclamation, Mr. Trump claimed that the gang conducted “enemy measures against the United States on the management, secretly or in other ways” of the Venezuelan government.

Lawyers who represent some of them then questioned the command before the Federal Court in Washington.

On the same day, the deportees of the deported were sent to El Salvador, who had concluded an agreement with the Trump government to take the Venezuelans and capture them.

A federal judge, James E. Boasberg, instructed the administration to stop the flights. He then issued a written order that temporarily held the administration’s plan during the legal proceedings.

The Trump administration appealed to hire the temporary interim arrangement of Richter Boasberg and a shared body of three appeal court judges in Washington on the side of the migrants, whereby the break was present. A judge wrote that the government’s deportation plan had even contested the Venezuelans “even a more gossam thread of the proper procedure”.

At this point, the Trump government asked the Supreme Court to burden itself and argued in her request that the case “asked basic questions about who decides how sensitive national security processes can be carried out in this country”.

The lawyers of the migrants answered strongly and argued that the temporary break of Richter Boasberg “the only thing that stood in the way of the government and sent migrants to a prison in El Salvador should never be seen again without procedural protection, much less judicial review.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward, the groups that represented the Venezuelan migrants, said that the president in a “efforts to punish a criminal gang” into the war law in a way that “was completely contradicted to the limited delegation of the congress of the war authority”.

Migrants’ lawyers said that the migrants sent to El Salvador are “in most brutal prisons in the world in which torture and other human rights violations are widespread.”

The Trump administration replied on Wednesday in a letter in which the government did not contest the Venezuelan migrants to receive a “judicial review”.

“You obviously do it,” wrote the incumbent Attorney General Sarah M. Harris.

Rather, the government argued that “the urgent questions at the moment are” procedural problems “about where and how prisoners should question their names as enemy aliens.” Ms. Harris argued that the migrants should have submitted their legal challenge in Texas, where they had been arrested in front of the deportation flights and not in Washington.

She asked the judges to raise the temporary block on Mr. Trump’s command and called the break “an unbearably long time in which a dish blocks the behavior of the operations of foreign and national security”.

Ms. Harris claimed that the migrants’ lawyers had offered a “sensational” story.

She added that the government denied that the migrants in El Salvador could be exposed to torture, and wrote that the government’s position “loathe torture, does not invite brutalization”.