Category
Victoria Derbyshire and Jonathan Reynolds on BBC Newsnight Victoria Derbyshire tore into Keir Starmer for his “timid” approach to Donald Trump’s new tariffs. While the…
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/Yl3IdqFGa6_nlh3HeCdxXXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Tuesday, April 8" title="The morning read for Tuesday, April 8"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Banner200115r-1-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Tuesday, April 8" title="The morning read for Tuesday, April 8" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-8%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%208" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-8%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%208" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-8%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%208" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-8%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%208" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-8%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%208" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-8%2F&title=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Tuesday%2C%20April%208" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-8/" data-a2a-title="The morning read for Tuesday, April 8">Share</a></p><p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-venezuelan-deportations.html">Supreme Court Clears Way for Venezuelan Deportations to Resume, for Now</a> (Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times)</li> <li><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/07/supreme-court-deportations-texas-00277646">Supreme Court says Venezuelans Trump wants to deport must be able to ‘actually seek’ relief before being deported</a> (Josh Gerstein, Politico)</li> <li><a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-deportation-salvador-maryland-40136c5aa844b6c12ba20ee67ab4df9a">Chief Justice Roberts pauses deadline for return of Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador</a> (Mark Sherman, The Associated Press)</li> <li><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tariffs-hit-lawsuit-group-his-supreme-court-adviser-funded-2056761">Trump Tariffs Hit With Lawsuit by Group His Supreme Court Adviser Funded</a> (Shane Croucher & Khaleda Rahman, Newsweek)</li> <li><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/high-court-declines-new-look-into-new-york-gun-restrictions/">New York gun restrictions stand after high court declines review</a> (Kelsey Reichmann, Courthouse News Service)</li> </ul> <div class="post_content_holder"> <div class="post_text"> </div> </div> <div class="post_category"> </div> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-tuesday-april-8/">The morning read for Tuesday, April 8</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →Listen on Spotify Apple Music Amazon Music – Wie weiter nach den Börsen-Abstürzen?Hans von der Burchard und Gordon Repinski über die Möglichkeiten der EU jetzt…
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/SItuqNBlayivKn-QIC5hDHn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas" title="Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-8-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas" title="Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-8-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-8-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-8-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-8-1000x1000.jpg 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%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20requires%20noncitizens%20to%20challenge%20detention%20and%20removal%20in%20Texas" 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%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20requires%20noncitizens%20to%20challenge%20detention%20and%20removal%20in%20Texas" 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%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20requires%20noncitizens%20to%20challenge%20detention%20and%20removal%20in%20Texas" 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%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20requires%20noncitizens%20to%20challenge%20detention%20and%20removal%20in%20Texas" 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%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20requires%20noncitizens%20to%20challenge%20detention%20and%20removal%20in%20Texas" 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%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas%2F&title=Supreme%20Court%20requires%20noncitizens%20to%20challenge%20detention%20and%20removal%20in%20Texas" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas/" data-a2a-title="Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a pair of orders by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had barred the government from removing noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang under a March 15 executive order issued by President Donald Trump.</p> <p>By a vote of 5-4, the justices declined to address the challengers’ contention that they are not covered by the 18th-century law on which Trump relied in issuing the order. Instead, the challengers’ lawsuit must be brought in Texas, where they are being held, rather than in Washington, D.C., the court explained.</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf">unsigned four-page opinion</a> emphasized that although courts have a limited role in reviewing claims under that law, the plaintiffs and others detained under the law are entitled to “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”<span id="more-319696"></span></p> <p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 17-page dissent joined in full by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She contended that her colleagues’ “decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.”</p> <p>Jackson wrote her own two-page dissent in which she lamented that the majority’s “fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.”</p> <p>The 1798 law at the center of the case is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court if either of two things occurs: Congress declares war, or there is an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” The law has been invoked only three times – during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.</p> <p>Trump’s executive order focuses on a large Venezuelan gang named Tren de Aragua, which began in Venezuela’s prisons and then spread into other parts of Latin America and, eventually, the United States. In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated it as a “foreign terrorist organization.”</p> <p>Trump found in his order that TdA “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” Therefore, he concluded, “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>Even before Trump issued the order, a group of Venezuelan nationals in immigration custody went to federal court in Washington. They said that they feared that they would be removed, and they challenged Trump’s attempt to rely on the Alien Enemies Act.</p> <p>U.S. District Judge James Boasberg quickly prohibited the federal government from removing any of the individual plaintiffs for 14 days. In a separate order issued later that day, Boasberg barred the government from removing anyone else under the Alien Enemies Act. During a hearing, Boasberg also ordered any flights to remove noncitizens that had already taken off to return to the United States.</p> <p>The five individual plaintiffs named in the complaint are still in immigration detention in the United States. However, news reports indicated that more than 200 other noncitizens were taken from the United States on March 15, with their planes landing in El Salvador after Boasberg issued his written order.</p> <p>The migrants were taken in shackles to a maximum-security “mega” prison in El Salvador, where their heads were shaved. The country’s president, Nayib Bukele, posted a video of the prisoners on social media that Rubio later reposted. The caption of the video read “Ooopsie … too late.”</p> <p>The Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to pause Boasberg’s order. The D.C. Circuit fast-tracked the government’s appeal, but on March 26 it rejected that request by a vote of 2-1.</p> <p>Sarah Harris, then the acting U.S. solicitor general, came to the Supreme Court on March 28, asking the justices to allow the Trump administration to enforce the March 15 order. The dispute, she contended, “presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security operations in this country – the President … or the Judiciary.” Harris told the justices that the “Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President.”</p> <p>Lawyers for the Venezuelan nationals urged the court to leave Boasberg’s order in place. They noted that “many (perhaps most) of the men” sent to the El Salvadoran prison in March “were not actually members of” TdA. Boasberg’s order, they told the justices, is therefore “essential to ensure that more individuals who have no affiliation with the gang will not be sent to a notorious foreign prison.”</p> <p>In an unsigned opinion on Monday evening, five of the court’s conservative justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – indicated that they would “not reach” the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the application of the AEA to them. Instead, the majority explained, because the relief that they are seeking “necessarily” suggests that their confinement in immigration custody and removal under the AEA is invalid, they must bring their claims as habeas corpus claims – that is, a challenge to the legality of their detention.</p> <p>The only place that such claims can be brought, the majority continued, is the judicial district where a prisoner is being detained. Because the plaintiffs in this case are now in Texas, rather than in Washington, D.C., the majority concluded, their case cannot be brought in Washington.</p> <p>The court made clear that – as the government agrees – the plaintiffs, as well as others who may be detained or removed under the AEA, are entitled to be notified “that they are subject to removal under the Act.” Moreover, the court added, addressing an argument made by lawyers for the plaintiffs during oral arguments in the lower courts, the government must provide that notice “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”</p> <p>Kavanaugh wrote a brief concurring opinion in which he emphasized that “the Court’s disagreement is not over <em>whether</em> the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers—all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review is available. The only question,” he concluded “is <em>where</em> that judicial review should occur.”</p> <p>Sotomayor called the court’s conclusions “suspect.” She wrote that the removal of noncitizens to the prison in El Salvador “presented a risk of extraordinary harm to these” plaintiffs. Referring to the case (also pending at the Supreme Court) of a Maryland man whom the government admits was sent to El Salvador as a result of an administrative error, she observed that the government has contended that “even when it makes a mistake, it cannot retrieve individuals from” the prison in El Salvador.</p> <p>“The implications of the Government’s position,” Sotomayor stressed, “is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.”</p> <p>Sotomayor concluded by calling the majority’s decision on Monday “indefensible.” “We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she wrote.</p> <p>In her separate dissent, Jackson explained that she agreed with Sotomayor but also wrote a separate dissent in which she questioned the majority’s decision to step into the dispute now, immediately before Boasberg had scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.</p> <p>Jackson criticized the majority for addressing these issues on their emergency docket and reaching a “rushed conclusion.” Normally, she said, when the justices weigh in on “complex and monumental issues,” they give the lower courts an opportunity to “address those matters first.” Then, she continued, the court “receives full briefing, hears oral argument, deliberates internally, and, finally, issues a reasoned opinion.” When the court departs from that normal practice, she said, “the risk of error always substantially increases” and it does so without “a record so posterity [may] see how it went wrong.”</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/07/supreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-requires-noncitizens-to-challenge-detention-and-removal-in-texas/">Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →LUXEMBOURG — The European Union is negotiating with a trade bazooka in its hand, but can’t agree on whether to pull the trigger just yet.…
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/AXDo7-tiasQk6Qq2rHg4LHn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S." title="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S."> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S." title="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S." style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-1000x1000.jpg 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%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." 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%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." 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%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." 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%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." 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%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." 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%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&title=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/" data-a2a-title="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S.">Share</a></p><p>The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Monday morning, asking the justices to block an order by a federal judge in Maryland that instructed the federal government to return a Maryland man erroneously deported to El Salvador, where he is being held in a maximum-security mega-prison, to the United States by Monday evening.</p> <p>Shortly after the government came to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit denied the Department of Justice’s request to block the order. “The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” the unanimous 4th Circuit wrote.</p> <p>John Sauer, who was confirmed as the U.S. solicitor general last week, told the justices that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had “ordered unprecedented relief: dictating to the United States that it must not only negotiate with a foreign country to return an enemy alien on foreign soil, but also succeed by 11:59 p.m. tonight.” Sauer also asked the court to grant an administrative stay, which would freeze Xinis’s order long enough to give the justices time to consider his request.<span id="more-319509"></span></p> <p>Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was born in El Salvador and came to this country as an undocumented immigrant. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal, which means that he is protected against being removed to El Salvador because of the likelihood that he would be harmed if returned there. He has never been charged with or convicted of a crime.</p> <p>On March 12, Abrego Garcia was taken into ICE custody and eventually moved to Texas and, from there, to El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center. The detainees who arrived there from the U.S. were stripped, shackled, and had their heads shaved. No one has heard from Abrego Garcia since he arrived in El Salvador.</p> <p>Lawyers representing Abrego Garcia went to federal court in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia lived with his wife and three children, seeking his return to the United States. The federal government acknowledged that Abrego Garcia should not have been taken to El Salvador, but it countered that Xinis lacked the power to consider Abrego Garcia’s case because (among other things) he was now in El Salvador and because the U.S government lacks any ability to get him back.</p> <p>In a brief ruling on Friday, followed by a longer written decision on Sunday, Xinis instructed the federal government to return Abrego Garcia by 11:59 p.m. on Monday. The government, she stressed, “had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador—let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere.”</p> <p>Xinis declined to put her ruling on hold to give the government time to appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (in an order that appeared on the docket after the Trump administration submitted its filing to the Supreme Corut) did the same.</p> <p>In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/20250407103341248_Kristi%20Noem%20application.pdf">his 25-page filing</a>, Sauer contended that “[e]ven amidst a deluge of unlawful injunctions” – apparently referring to other court orders blocking Trump administration policies – “this order is remarkable” because even Abrego Garcia had not asked the federal courts “to force the United States to persuade El Salvador to release” him “on a judicially mandated clock.” The federal government, Sauer maintained, “cannot guarantee success in sensitive international negotiations in advance, least of all when a court imposes an absurdly compressed, mandatory deadline that vastly complicates the give-and-take of foreign-relations negotiations.”</p> <p>Sauer also repeated the government’s contention that Abrego Garcia was a member of the international criminal gang Mara Salvatrucha, commonly known as MS-13, which the United States has designated as a terrorist organization. Abrego Garcia disputes this, and in her written order Xinis noted that “the ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York—a place he has never lived.”</p> <p>Sauer conceded that Abrego Garcia’s “removal to El Salvador was an administrative error.” But that, he continued, does not give district courts the authority to “seize control over foreign relations, treat the Executive Branch as a subordinate diplomat, and demand that the United States let a member of a foreign terrorist organization into America tonight.”</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/07/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/">Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S.</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to impose an additional 50 percent tariff on China, escalating the tit-for-tat retaliation with Beijing that followed the White…
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/CLosXSggRpc_Z69G-AZG1nn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Court adds two cases on Sixth Amendment and retroactive punishment to fall docket" title="Court adds two cases on Sixth Amendment and retroactive punishment to fall docket"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-5-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court adds two cases on Sixth Amendment and retroactive punishment to fall docket" title="Court adds two cases on Sixth Amendment and retroactive punishment to fall docket" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-5-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-5-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-5-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-5-1000x1000.jpg 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%2F04%2Fcourt-adds-two-cases-on-sixth-amendment-and-retroactive-punishment-to-fall-docket%2F&linkname=Court%20adds%20two%20cases%20on%20Sixth%20Amendment%20and%20retroactive%20punishment%20to%20fall%20docket" 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%2F04%2Fcourt-adds-two-cases-on-sixth-amendment-and-retroactive-punishment-to-fall-docket%2F&linkname=Court%20adds%20two%20cases%20on%20Sixth%20Amendment%20and%20retroactive%20punishment%20to%20fall%20docket" 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%2F04%2Fcourt-adds-two-cases-on-sixth-amendment-and-retroactive-punishment-to-fall-docket%2F&linkname=Court%20adds%20two%20cases%20on%20Sixth%20Amendment%20and%20retroactive%20punishment%20to%20fall%20docket" 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%2F04%2Fcourt-adds-two-cases-on-sixth-amendment-and-retroactive-punishment-to-fall-docket%2F&linkname=Court%20adds%20two%20cases%20on%20Sixth%20Amendment%20and%20retroactive%20punishment%20to%20fall%20docket" 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%2F04%2Fcourt-adds-two-cases-on-sixth-amendment-and-retroactive-punishment-to-fall-docket%2F&linkname=Court%20adds%20two%20cases%20on%20Sixth%20Amendment%20and%20retroactive%20punishment%20to%20fall%20docket" 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%2F04%2Fcourt-adds-two-cases-on-sixth-amendment-and-retroactive-punishment-to-fall-docket%2F&title=Court%20adds%20two%20cases%20on%20Sixth%20Amendment%20and%20retroactive%20punishment%20to%20fall%20docket" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/court-adds-two-cases-on-sixth-amendment-and-retroactive-punishment-to-fall-docket/" data-a2a-title="Court adds two cases on Sixth Amendment and retroactive punishment to fall docket">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Monday morning added two new cases, involving the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and restitution orders, to its docket for the 2025-26 term. The announcement came as part of a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040725zor_2dp3.pdf">list of orders</a> from the justices’ private conference on Friday, April 4.</p> <p>The court did not act on several requests for emergency relief, including in cases involving President Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship and his administration’s use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, that are also pending at the court. Orders in those cases could still come at any time.</p> <p>The Constitution’s ex post facto clause prohibits laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred. The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether a restitution order, imposed as part of a criminal sentence, is the kind of “punishment” that can violate the clause.<span id="more-319502"></span></p> <p>The question came to the court in two separate cases. The justices agreed to hear <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ellingburg-v-united-states/">the case of Holsey Ellingburg</a>, who was sentenced to nearly 27 years in prison and ordered to pay restitution for his role in a bank robbery in Georgia. Under the federal laws in effect when he committed the crime, he was required to make his restitution payments for 20 years, until 2016. During that time, he paid approximately $2,000.</p> <p>In 1996, Congress enacted a new law that extends defendants’ liability until the later of two dates: 20 years after the judgment is entered against them or when they are released from prison. The law also requires defendants to pay interest on the restitution.</p> <p>After 2016, the government continued to try to collect restitution from Ellingburg – including after he was released from prison. Ellingburg went to court, arguing that he should not have had to pay restitution after November 2016 and that the 1996 law violated the Constitution.</p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit rejected his argument, ruling that restitution is a civil remedy. Ellingburg came to the Supreme Court in October, asking the justices to take up his case. After considering his case at five consecutive conferences, they granted his petition for review on Monday.</p> <p>The justices did not take up <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/neilly-v-michigan/">the case of William Neilly</a>, who had also asked the justices to weigh in on a similar question. Neilly’s petition for review will presumably be put on hold until the justices rule sometime next year on Ellingburg’s case.</p> <p>Nearly a half-century ago, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a trial court infringed on a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to be represented by an attorney when it prohibited him from meeting with his lawyer during an overnight break in his testimony. The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a related question – whether a court can allow a defendant and his lawyer to meet, but nonetheless ban them from discussing his testimony.</p> <p>The question comes to the court <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/villarreal-v-texas/">in the case of David Villareal</a>, who was convicted and sentenced to 60 years in prison for the stabbing death of his boyfriend, Aaron Estrada. Villareal insisted that he was only acting in self-defense.</p> <p>Villareal came to the Supreme Court in November, telling the justices that the lower courts are divided over whether such a bar is constitutional.</p> <p>Texas acknowledged that the lower courts have reached different conclusions regarding the propriety of such orders. But they are “so rarely issued that” the Supreme Court does not need to weigh in, the state insisted. And in any event, the state added, such orders are “compatible with the Sixth Amendment’s original meaning.”</p> <p>After considering the case at two consecutive conferences, the Supreme Court granted Villareal’s petition for review.</p> <p>The justices also turned down, without comment or relisting it for consideration at a second conference, a request to weigh in now on the constitutionality of the concealed-carry licensing scheme that New York enacted in the wake of the court’s 2022 decision in <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/">New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen</a></em>, which struck down the law then in effect.</p> <p>As the case came to the court, it hinged in particular on what time period courts should look at to determine the original meaning of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and the law’s requirement that an applicant have “good moral character.” New York officials had stressed that the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allowing the state to enforce most of the law was only a preliminary one “and may change” as the litigation continues.</p> <p>The court once again did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that have been pending for several weeks, including challenges to <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/">Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity magazines</a> and <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/">Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles</a>, as well as a <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apache-stronghold-v-united-states/">challenge to the transfer to a mining company of federal land in Arizona</a> that the San Carlos Apache Tribe says would destroy specific religious rituals at the site forever. </p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/07/court-adds-two-cases-on-sixth-amendment-and-retroactive-punishment-for-the-fall/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/court-adds-two-cases-on-sixth-amendment-and-retroactive-punishment-to-fall-docket/">Court adds two cases on Sixth Amendment and retroactive punishment to fall docket</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/HyeErxe577Lep04qHVv5Pnn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Monday, April 7" title="The morning read for Monday, April 7"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Banner200115r-1-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Monday, April 7" title="The morning read for Monday, April 7" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-7%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%207" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-7%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%207" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-7%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%207" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-7%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%207" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-7%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%207" 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%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-monday-april-7%2F&title=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Monday%2C%20April%207" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-monday-april-7/" data-a2a-title="The morning read for Monday, April 7">Share</a></p><p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-new-york-gun-law-rcna199373">Supreme Court rejects challenge to New York gun law</a> (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)</li> <li><a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5235598-trump-firings-court-ruling/">Appeals court halts Trump independent agency firings, spurring Supreme Court battle</a> (Zach Schonfeld & Ella Lee, The Hill)</li> <li><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judges-stymie-trump-with-nationwide-orders-pressure-builds-us-supreme-court-2025-04-06/">As judges stymie Trump with nationwide orders, pressure builds on US Supreme Court</a> (Andrew Chung, Reuters)</li> <li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/courts-guns-teenagers.html">A Split on the Right Over Whether Teenagers Can Have Guns</a> (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)</li> <li><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/president-donald-trump-federal-funding-freeze-rhode-island-new-york-letitia-james-supreme-court-2056175">Trump Administration Touts Supreme Court Victory in Funding Cut Dispute</a> (Sean O’Driscoll, Newsweek)</li> </ul> <div class="post_content_holder"> <div class="post_text"> </div> </div> <div class="post_category"> </div> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-monday-april-7/">The morning read for Monday, April 7</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Read more →The Dutch government will now assess exports of military equipment and dual-use goods to Israel on a case-by-case basis, following the collapse of a ceasefire…
Read more →