"Unconstrained by law"

"Ours is a government of laws, not of men. By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines that foundational principle." - Justice Sotomayor

Lady Justice, having been abandoned by the Supreme Court, walks into the sunset.

In an unsigned, 6-3 order dated June 23, 2024, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration permission to deport migrants to any country, even if they might be harmed there, without any right to challenge that deportation. I’m simplifying, but that’s the gist of it.

Supreme Court expert and law professor Steve Vladeck, usually very measured in his words, called the ruling “disastrous.” (Attorneys, please read his entire post.)

Immigration attorney Jonathan D. Ryan writes: “This decision is about more than immigration. It is about a shift in the nature of state power within the United States. It allows the Government to:

• Disappear people with as little as 15 minutes’ notice.

• Operate beyond the boundaries of judicial review.

• Punish lower courts for doing their jobs.

• Export its cruelty to any nation that will accept a person.

Today it’s the immigrant. Tomorrow it’s the citizen dissident, the journalist, the lawyer, the doctor, the teacher; any person the regime deems undesirable. The mechanism is the same: claim that the person has no right to review, no right to notice, no right to a hearing, and no right to remain.”

Justice Sotomayor, joined in full by Justices Kagan and Jackson, wrote a blistering 19-page dissent. Highlights:

• “In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there. Then, in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel. An attentive District Court’s timely intervention only narrowly prevented a third set of unlawful removals to Libya. Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires, this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion.”

• “The Government thus openly flouted two court orders, including the one from which it now seeks relief. Even if the orders in question had been mistaken, the Government had a duty to obey them until they were “‘reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.’” ... That principle is a bedrock of the rule of law. The Government’s misconduct threatens it to its core. So too does this Court’s decision to grant the Government equitable relief. This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last. … Yet each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”

• “The Government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The episodes of noncompliance in this very case illustrate the risks. Thirteen noncitizens narrowly escaped being the target of extraordinary violence in Libya; O. C. G. spent months in hiding in Guatemala; others face release in South Sudan, which the State Department says is in the midst of “‘armed conflict’” between “‘ethnic groups.’” … Only the District Court’s careful attention to this case prevented worse outcomes. Yet today the Court obstructs those proceedings, exposing thousands to the risk of torture or death.”

• “On the merits of its appeal, the Government principally raises a bevy of jurisdictional objections. Given its conduct in these proceedings, the Government’s posture resembles that of the arsonist who calls 911 to report firefighters for violating a local noise ordinance.”

You may think this does not concern you because you are an American citizen. But we deport citizens too! Look:

• “Available data indicate ICE and CBP took enforcement actions against some U.S. citizens. For example, available ICE data indicate that ICE arrested 674, detained 121, and removed 70 potential U.S. citizens from fiscal year 2015 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2020 (March 2020).” - U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), July 20, 2025.

And lest you think “it will all work out in the end” because DOJ lawyers have ethics, think again. Look:

• “Mr. Reuveni's disclosures detail violations of law rules or regulations and the abuse of authority by DOJ and White House personnel as well as the creation of substantial and specific health and safety threats to noncitizens These high level governmental personnel knowingly and willfully defied court orders directed their subordinate attorneys to make misrepresentations to courts and engaged in scheme to withhold relevant information from the court to advance the Administration's priority of deporting noncitizens.” - Protected Whistleblower Disclosure of Erez Reuveni Regarding Violation of Laws, Rules & Regulations, Abuse of Authority, and Substantial and Specific Danger to Health and Safety at the Department of Justice, July 24, 2025.

Mr. Reuveni was a DOJ lawyer who was fired because he refused to lie to courts.

Tomorrow we will take a look at the case of Narciso Barranco, who was brutalized by ICE while landscaping at an IHOP in Santa Ana, California.

Meanwhile, comments always welcome, and THANK YOU! to all subscribers, free and paid.

Stay wide awake!

***