Many pundits and apoplectic Lawfare leftists are noting a set of four recent Supreme Court rulings favorable to the Trump administration.
The most recent ruling [pdf here] said nonprofit groups lacked legal standing to bring lawsuits challenging the firings of probationary workers at the departments of Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs. As a consequence, the accompanying Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is defeated.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court also ruled -generally favorable- to the Trump administration [pdf here] on the issue of Venezuelans in the United States labeled by President Donald Trump as “alien enemies.” The justices ruled (5-4) to vacate a lower judge’s order that imposed a block on all deportations under Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
However, the court ruled to remove the TRO under auspices of the wrong venue for challenge; saying the deportees must challenge their status in the district court where jurisdiction of detainment takes place.
That split court ruling follows on the heels of Chief Justice John Roberts issuing an administrative order indefinitely lifting a lower court injunction [pdf here] that demanded the return of previously deported Abrego Garcia set by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis.
In short, the Supreme Court, at least a narrow majority therein, appears to be knocking down the process of federal judge shopping to issue nationwide restraining orders against the Trump administration. Twitter account Unseen1 has a solid and brief outline of what the court appears to be doing:
“The big win for Trump in the scotus today was not the resumption of deportations under the AEA (alien enemies act) (but that was big also). The major win was the court narrowing the federal district judges’ jurisdiction They once again narrowed the ability of the APA (administrative procedure act) which is the main law the vast majority of these unconditional judicial rulings have been made under.
The left is using the APA like Macgyver used bubble gum to get them out of sticky situations. Without the APA, they can’t judge shop as much. They can’t make class action lawsuits that have national injunctions attached.
In short, the scotus with this order, along with the one last week, is narrowing the use of the APA to reign in the lower federal district courts. There are already judicial remedies for almost all of these cases that do not involve a hand-picked federal district court needing to issue a national injunction or TRO.
Grants and contracts should be brought in federal claims court.
Immigration issues should be brought as habeas cases, and most can be held in front of immigration judges.
Government firings should be brought in front of the merit systems protection board.
The left doesn’t want to follow proper procedures for a host of reasons, like added costs, unfriendly judges could set precedent, extra work, time, etc. So, they invented the APA macgyver option. Hence, about 50 TROs/injunctions later, the scotus is smacking this practice down and telling them that this effort will not result in favorable opinions for them.
In short, the scotus is telling the federal district courts not to draw outside the lines regardless of the merits of the case because they will be denied on jurisdiction grounds if they reach the high court.” [link]
However, as noted by The American Thinker: {…} “The real problem is that the Supreme Court emphasized that every person named as an “alien enemy” under the AEA is entitled to judicial review. This is insane because it means that the judiciary will, once again, take unto itself the power to control foreign policy.
While this standard currently applies to the 18-20 million ordinary illegals that Biden let in (something no legislator or judge ever contemplated when immigration laws were passed or reviewed), it cannot possibly apply to the AEA, which is a question of foreign policy solely under the executive’s purview. (Sadly, though, Bondi’s DOJ actually gave the Supremes this opening, so part of the responsibility for this ludicrous holding is on her.) (more)