The United States Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, vacated the orders handed down by district judge James Boasberg in the Tren de Aragua deportation case with a decision narrowly limited to the question of where the suit should have been filed and what procedure the suit should have been filed under.  The Court held that the suit should have been filed where the persons subject to deportation are being detained — Texas — and that the suit should have been filed as a habeas corpus action.

This narrow ruling comes in what is clearly the most closely watched case of all the eight emergency applications the administration has filed with the High Court thus far.

The 5-4 decision saw Chief Justice Roberts voting with the conservative members of the Court, in and of itself heartening news for the administration.

The opinion was rendered per curiam, although there was a concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh and dissenting opinions by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Brown.

In his concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh sought to make clear that

the Court’s disagreement with the dissenters is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers — all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review is available. The only question is where that judicial review should occur.

The majority opinion expanded upon this aspect of the ruling in an attempt to allay the concerns of the dissenters:

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we [4 TRUMP v. J. G. G. Per Curiam] hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring — given our decision today — that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay.

The extensive dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan, Brown and (partially) Barrett, focused primarily on the claimed unfairness of the actions of the Trump Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security in the manner in which the deportees were transported to the prison in El Salvador.  It interpreted the majority decision as follows:

That means, of course, that the Government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025. [snip]

To the extent the Government removes even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court. [snip]

[T]he Court’s decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.

Several aspects of this decision should reasonably be seen as encouraging in this ongoing clash between the Judiciary and the Executive, including the fact that the chief justice came down on the side of the conservative wing  of the Court, the fact that Judge Boasberg has been well and truly removed from at least this part of the battle, and the fact that there is at least a small light of clarity being shown by the High Court, indicating that it is ready to start reining in some of the lower courts.

One can only hope that its next pronouncement will spell the end of the use of totally illegal and unconstitutional “nationwide” injunctions, which have no legal basis whatsoever.

The opinions of the Court can be found here.

All in all, a good day for the rule of law.

Image via Pixabay.