In a recent controversial decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to permit the Trump administration to continue deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 while allowing individuals to dispute their deportation on due process grounds.
Newsweek reported that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is facing backlash after siding with the Court's liberal justices in dissenting against the majority decision, drawing ire from conservative circles.
The legal dispute stemmed from the Trump administration's application of a centuries-old law to facilitate deportations of alleged gang members, stirring debate over due process rights.
The Supreme Court's decision, reached narrowly with a 5-4 vote, temporarily permits these deportations to persist. However, central to the dissent was the backing of Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the Court's trio of liberal justices.
Justice Barrett's dissent was noteworthy for aligning her with the liberal justices, calling into question the conduct of the administration and its implications for the rule of law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was particularly vocal, criticizing the decision-making process for being expedited and potentially undermining justice. "Poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law," Sotomayor stated, underscoring her concerns about the decision being handled on an emergency basis.
Justice Sotomayor also argued that if the District Court had been allowed to resolve the matter, the government could appeal after due process was observed. She asserted, "In its rush to decide the issue now, the Court halts the lower court's work."
Barrett's dissenting position sparked significant backlash among conservative figures and Trump supporters. Influential commenter Rogan O’Handley, better known as DC_Draino, lamented her alignment with liberal judges, stating that Barrett had sided with them "to keep cartels here in America." This sentiment was echoed by other commentators who criticized Barrett's decision.
Commentator Catturd voiced a strong disapproval of Barrett, mentioning, "There's nobody I have less respect for in the entire country besides Dr. Fauci than Amy Commie Barrett."
The backlash also included criticism of Barrett's perceived motivations, with accusations that her actions were guided by a desire for media praise.
MAGA supporter Kim ‘Katie’ USA labeled Barrett's appointment as a mistake, implying that her actions indicate a betrayal of conservative values. This sentiment was reinforced by comments suggesting Barrett harbored negative sentiments toward Trump himself.
Notwithstanding the backlash, the case now proceeds back to the district court in Washington, D.C., where Judge Boasberg may possibly order hearings for the individuals affected by the deportations.
The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the decision as a victory for due process rights, emphasizing the importance of challenging deportations in court.
This legal development reveals the complexities of judicial decisions involving immigration and deportation, spotlighting the differing interpretations of ancient laws like the Alien Enemies Act.
Trump's supporters, however, focused on the ability to deport gang members as a win, with the former President himself declaring, "A great day for justice in America."
Barrett’s choice to align with the liberal justices challenges assumptions about ideological alliances on the Court. This case illustrates how Supreme Court decisions can have ripple effects beyond legal outcomes, influencing public opinion and political discourse.
As the case returns to the district court, attention will be focused on how Judge Boasberg addresses the due process concerns raised. The outcome may set crucial precedents for the treatment of similar cases in the future.
