Berlin. For seven years, the complex issue of the further development of the banking union has been a matter of debate. Now, suddenly, things are moving: The common European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) is back on the European Parliament’s agenda. The European Parliament’s ECON Committee is due to vote on the proposed regulation as early as Thursday. A valid reason for this rush? There is none. However, it aligns with the preceding process.
Once again, someone tries to take the second step before the first. In 2015, the European Commission presented a proposal before the revised Deposit Guarantee Scheme Directive could even be implemented in the member countries. This initial rush has led to extremely controversial discussions until today. For example, it is completely unclear which elements the further development of the banking union should actually include and how they should be organized. These include, in particular, the regulatory treatment of government bonds, regulatory ring-fencing in host countries and the differences between national insolvency laws. A European deposit insurance system, which is only one discussed element of the banking union, must fit into all of this. Crucial questions that have not yet been resolved.
It is completely unclear which elements the further development of the banking union should actually include and how they should be organized.
The rapporteur at that time, Esther de Lange, did not manage to reach an agreement in the European Parliament. There were concerns that an immature EDIS could do more harm than good. The differences in positions also became apparent in June 2022, when the Eurogroup was unable to reach common understanding on the correct design of the banking union despite serious efforts by Paschal Donohoe. Since then, the objective has been to revise the crisis management for banks (CMDI). It was agreed that only on this basis it could be decided whether and in which form a European deposit protection scheme would be necessary at all.
The vote on CMDI in the European Parliament is scheduled for April 24; the Council’s position is still completely open. Instead of waiting for this process to be completed, the new EDIS rapporteur in the EP, Othmar Karas, has taken up the EDIS ball since the end of February and initiated a rash quick shot.
There is a considerable risk of repeating the mistake made by the European Commission in 2015 based on hastily-negotiated compromises. In particular, the proposal completely ignores the structural changes resulting from the review of the crisis management of banks. While CMDI is aimed at the resolution of banks, EDIS primarily serves to compensate depositors. This simply does not fit together, and there is a considerable risk that the European Parliament will adopt clashing positions on CMDI and EDIS. This mismatch would create severe uncertainty which does not only have a negative effect on financial stability, but also on the overall competitiveness of the banking sector and the European Union. This cannot be in the interests of those who are in favor of EDIS.
We therefore call upon the European parliamentarians to postpone the vote on EDIS.
Unlike many technical discussions, the protection of deposits is an issue that is perceived very closely by the European population, not only in Germany. A premature ‘compromise’, such as the one currently being pursued by ECON, could have far-reaching and unforeseeable consequences, especially at the present time — especially just before the upcoming European elections. Every member of the European Parliament should therefore examine very carefully whether they have really considered the implications of the ECON proposal. After all, a wrong decision on this important issue would not only have consequences for the future European Parliament, but also for the European Union as a whole.
We therefore urgently recommend not taking the second step before the first and risk stumbling. We therefore call upon the European parliamentarians to postpone the vote on EDIS.
We are all united by the same goal. But let’s take the time to find a viable way which considers all interests equally. And let us not forget: In the end, half-baked ideas only play into the hands of populists.
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/zPu12oPJl_7wuXWy-Ylj93n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Trump asks justices to intervene on Alien Enemies Act removals" title="Trump asks justices to intervene on Alien Enemies Act removals"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/supremecourt2-scaled-1-150x150.jpeg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Trump asks justices to intervene on Alien Enemies Act removals" title="Trump asks justices to intervene on Alien Enemies Act removals" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/supremecourt2-scaled-1-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/supremecourt2-scaled-1-570x570.jpeg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/supremecourt2-scaled-1-500x500.jpeg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/supremecourt2-scaled-1-1000x1000.jpeg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Ftrump-asks-justices-to-intervene-on-alien-enemies-act-removals%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20justices%20to%20intervene%20on%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20removals" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Ftrump-asks-justices-to-intervene-on-alien-enemies-act-removals%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20justices%20to%20intervene%20on%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20removals" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Ftrump-asks-justices-to-intervene-on-alien-enemies-act-removals%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20justices%20to%20intervene%20on%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20removals" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Ftrump-asks-justices-to-intervene-on-alien-enemies-act-removals%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20justices%20to%20intervene%20on%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20removals" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Ftrump-asks-justices-to-intervene-on-alien-enemies-act-removals%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20justices%20to%20intervene%20on%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20removals" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Ftrump-asks-justices-to-intervene-on-alien-enemies-act-removals%2F&title=Trump%20asks%20justices%20to%20intervene%20on%20Alien%20Enemies%20Act%20removals" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/trump-asks-justices-to-intervene-on-alien-enemies-act-removals/" data-a2a-title="Trump asks justices to intervene on Alien Enemies Act removals">Share</a></p><p>The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Friday morning, asking the justices to allow it to enforce an executive order that directs government officials to quickly remove, without a hearing, noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang. The order relies on a 1798 law that until now has only been invoked during wartime.</p>
<p>Earlier this month, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg barred the federal government from removing any of the alleged members of the gang, or anyone else, under the Alien Enemies Act. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A931/354225/20250328102104004_24a%20Trump%20v.%20JGG.pdf">40-page filing</a>, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the justices that the dispute “presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security operations in this country — the President, through Article II” of the Constitution, “or the Judiciary,” through temporary restraining orders. “The Constitution,” Harris wrote, “supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice.”</p>
<p>The White House issued the executive order on March 15. It targets Tren de Aragua, a large Venezuelan gang that originated in the country’s prisons and then expanded into other parts of Latin America, where it has been responsible for sex trafficking, drugs, and human smuggling. The gang extended its presence to the United States, prompting then-candidate Donald Trump to falsely contend during a 2024 presidential debate that the gang had taken over the city of Aurora, Colo., outside Denver.</p>
<p>The 18th -century Alien Enemies Act allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other judicial review when Congress has declared war or when an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” takes place. It was invoked during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.</p>
<p>In his executive order, Trump found that Tren de Aragua – which Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” in February – “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” Based on that conclusion, he indicated that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”</p>
<p>Five Venezuelan nationals in immigration custody who feared they would be removed <a href="https://www.aclu.org/cases/j-g-g-v-trump?document=COMPLAINT">went to federal court in Washington, D.C.</a>, to challenge Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and seeking to stave off their removals.</p>
<p>Boasberg barred the federal government from removing any of the individual plaintiffs for 14 days. Later the same day, he prohibited the government from removing anyone under the Alien Enemies Act; during a hearing, he also ordered any flights that had already taken off to remove noncitizens under the law to return to the United States.</p>
<p>Since Boasberg’s initial hearing on March 15, there have been ongoing proceedings in his court relating to the government’s compliance with his orders. The individual plaintiffs named in the case remain in detention in the United States, but news reports indicated that more than 200 noncitizens were removed to El Salvador on Saturday night and Sunday morning. None of the planes carrying those noncitizens landed in El Salvador before Boasberg issued his written order.</p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit fast-tracked the government’s appeal, hearing argument on March 24 and rejecting the government’s request to put Boasberg’s orders on hold two days later, by a vote of 2-1.</p>
<p>Boasberg’s orders, the Trump administration contended “now jeopardize sensitive diplomatic negotiations and delicate national-security operations, which were designed to extirpate TdA’s presence in our country before it gains a greater foothold.”</p>
<p>The divided ruling by the D.C. Circuit, the Trump administration continued, also “cries out for” the justices to step in. The Supreme Court “has held that detentions and removals under the Alien Enemies Act are so bound up with national-security judgments” that courts generally can not weigh in at all, except through some habeas corpus claims – that is, an action to be brought before a court to determine the legality of an individual’s detention. But the D.C. Circuit did not decide whether the plaintiffs in this case should have instead filed a habeas lawsuit in Texas, where they are being held.</p>
<p>Boasberg was also wrong when he granted relief to a nationwide class, made up of anyone in the custody of the federal government who might be subject to Trump’s order, Harris wrote. Among other things, she argued, there are too many differences among the members of the class: Trump’s order applies only to people who are members of TdA, but the individuals named in the complaint in this case contend that they are <em>not</em> members of the group. A majority of the D.C. Circuit, Harris added, “did not reach these objections, even though the government raised them below.” </p>
<p>Moreover, Harris continued, the lower courts did not consider whether Trump’s order itself is legal – which, she insisted, it is. Trump, she wrote, found “that TdA is both tied to the Maduro regime and itself has gained control over parts of Venezuelan territory,” and “that it has engaged in an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’ into our country.” “As a majority of the D.C. Circuit agreed,” she emphasized, “those findings — if reviewable at all — receive the requisite deference due the President’s national security judgments.”</p>
<p>Harris repeated her plea, made in earlier filings, for the Supreme Court to intervene to stop what she characterized as “rule-by-TRO from further upending the separation of powers.” In this case, she complained, “the district court’s orders have rebuffed the President’s judgment as to how to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations. More broadly, rule-by-TRO has become so commonplace among district courts that the Executive Branch’s basic functions are in peril.” Since the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20, she noted, district courts “have issued more than 40 injunctions or TROs against the Executive Branch.”</p>
<p>Harris also asked the justices to issue an administrative stay – that is, a temporary order blocking Boasberg’s orders to give the Supreme Court time to consider her emergency appeal.</p>
<p>Harris’s request goes first to Chief Justice John Roberts, who fields emergency appeals from the D.C. Circuit. He quickly called for a response by Tuesday, April 1. Roberts can act on Harris’s request alone, but he is more likely to instruct the plaintiffs to respond and then refer the request to the full court.</p>
<p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/03/28/trump-asks-justices-to-intervene-on-alien-enemies-act-removals/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/trump-asks-justices-to-intervene-on-alien-enemies-act-removals/">Trump asks justices to intervene on Alien Enemies Act removals</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
