KNOWLEDGE is POWER / REAL NEWS is KEY
New York: Monday, April 21, 2025
© 2025 U-S-NEWS.COM
Online Readers: 324 (random number)
New York: Monday, April 21, 2025
Online: 311 (random number)
Join our "Free Speech Social Platform ONGO247.COM" Click Here
Justice Alito’s Dissenting Statement Has Been Released — And He Didn’t Hold Back! * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Noah
Home
News Headlines
NEWS HEADLINES: Justice Alito’s Dissenting Statement Has Been Released — And He Didn’t Hold Back! * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Noah

NEWS HEADLINES: Justice Alito’s Dissenting Statement Has Been Released — And He Didn’t Hold Back! * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Noah

News Headlines
··13 min read·

🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel

I have been waiting for this to drop and it finally did!

So much to unpack here….

Yesterday, I brought you this report:

REVEALED: The Truth About The Overnight 7-2 Supreme Court Ruling HALTING Trump’s Deportations

Now we finally dig into the “2” dissenting Justices, Alito and Thomas.

Seemingly the only two reliable true and uncompromised Justices we have on the Court.

Even Gorsuch disappointed.

But today we get to read Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion, joined in by Justice Thomas.

Justice Alito rightfully says he was STUNNED by the Court’s move here:

Me too pal, me too.

He held no punches, saying the Judicial Branch is no longer following the law:

He diced them up in multiple ways, pulling no punches in highlighting all the egregious errors in judgment:

This might be the best part of the entire opinion:

You can read the entire 5-page opinion here (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf) and I will also post it directly below:

I don’t like to rely on AI too much, but I actually thought Grok did an excellent job with this summary (in case you’re not a legal scholar and you’d like to understand this in layman’s terms):

Summary of Justice Alito’s Dissent in A.A.R.P. v. Trump (2025)

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision to grant emergency relief under the All Writs Act, which prohibited the government from removing a “putative class of detainees” affected by a March 2025 Presidential Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Alito argues that the Court’s hasty, unprecedented order was legally and procedurally flawed. Below are the main points of his dissent:

Jurisdictional Uncertainty:

  • The All Writs Act does not independently grant jurisdiction; it only aids existing jurisdiction.

  • The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction depended on the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which was questionable because the appealed “order” was a “constructive” denial of a temporary restraining order (TRO) by the District Court, not an actual denial. TRO denials are typically not appealable, and the Fifth Circuit ruled it lacked jurisdiction.

Failure to Follow Proper Procedure:

  • Applicants did not adequately seek emergency relief in the District Court before appealing, as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.

  • They demanded a ruling within 45 minutes on Good Friday, and when the District Court did not comply within 133 minutes, they appealed, which the District Court said stripped its jurisdiction.

Premature Supreme Court Action:

  • The Fifth Circuit was actively considering the issue, and a decision was imminent, but the Supreme Court acted without waiting, violating its own Rule 23.3, which requires exhausting lower court remedies except in extraordinary circumstances.

Lack of Government Response:

  • The Court issued its order based solely on the applicants’ papers, without a government response or input from lower courts.

  • The District Court had given the government 24 hours to respond, but the applicants’ appeal halted this process.

Weak Factual Basis:

  • The applicants’ claim of imminent removal lacked concrete evidence. Alito notes that in a related case, a government attorney stated no deportations were planned for April 18 or 19, 2025.

  • All Writs Act injunctions require “indisputably clear” legal rights and exigent circumstances, which Alito argues were not met.

Improper Class-Wide Relief:

  • The Court granted relief to a “putative class” that was never certified by the District Court.

  • Alito questions whether class relief is permissible in habeas proceedings, as the Supreme Court has never endorsed this.

Midnight Ruling Without Explanation:

  • The Court issued its order at midnight, within eight hours of receiving the application, without explanation or justification, which Alito deems unnecessary and inappropriate under the circumstances.

Conclusion:

Alito argues that the Court’s order was a rushed, legally dubious overreach that bypassed established procedures, lacked jurisdictional clarity, and relied on weak evidence. He emphasizes that both the Executive and Judiciary must follow the law, referencing a related case (Trump v. J. G. G.) and urging adherence to proper legal processes.

In case you missed our original report, I’ll put that right here below:

REVEALED: The Truth About The Overnight 7-2 Supreme Court Ruling HALTING Trump’s Deportations

Late last night, the US Supreme Court took the rather unusual approach of issuing an overnight order at nearly midnight against President Trump, requiring him to immediately halt all deportations.

Details here in case you haven’t seen it:x

Now I want to comment on this and tell you what it means (and what it doesn’t mean).

My first comment is to agree with this post: John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh are absolute DISGRACES to the Supreme Court:

I expect the liberals to act this way, but at least we know who they are.

These other ones are supposed to uphold the Constitution and rule of law in this country, and it’s beginning to look like they may be compromised in some way.

The first one we’ve known for a long time, but the other two are real disappointments.

Maybe Kavanaugh is too busy pounding those beers again?

Amy Coney Barrett we should have known by the hyphenated last name, or more specifically the disguised hyphenated last name.

You do know that’s true, right?

From Grok, the stats show it’s about double the amount of Liberals hyphenating vs. Conservatives:

“Coney” is not a middle name, it’s a hyphenated last name, but since ACB wanted to be a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing and appeal to Republicans so she dropped the hyphen.

She is the very definition of what we call a RINO — a Republican In Name Only.  A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.  A rat!

But still very disappointing.  And Kavanaugh too.

We appear to only have two uncompromised judges on the Supreme Court.

But setting that all aside for a moment, let’s discuss what this Order says….and what it does not say.

First, let’s read it…it’s very short:

Now allow me to explain….

Basically, the Court is saying because there is a pending case in the 5th Circuit (Boasberg), they don’t want any actions that might be irreversible taken right now until the Appellate Court rules and then for the Supreme Court to rule.

That’s it.

It’s not a final decision on the merits.

It’s not permanent.

It’s simply a pause.  A “let’s wait and see”.

See also

That’s the good news.

But I will say this to be completely intellectually honest: It’s not a good sign.

This is a very strange, very unusual course of action, and while it’s not a final ruling it does hint towards how he final vote may go.

And I don’t like that one bit.

I thought this was an excellent analysis:

So it’s definitely not all sunshine and roses, there is trouble here.

It’s not FINAL trouble yet, but let’s not kid ourselves and think it’s good.  It’s not.

Will Trump defy the Supreme Court?

Have they overstepped their bounds?

This is shaping up to be a battle for the ages, Constitutionally speaking:

My thoughts?

Folks, if there was ever a time for evidence to come out about Supreme Court Justices being compromised, now would be the time.

Something in my gut tells me President Trump and his team hold that card, that TRUMP CARD, somewhere deep up their sleeve and they’re waiting for the right time to play it.

They’re going to let the Court go as far as it will, perhaps hang themselves with all the rope they are given, and then play the Trump Card?

I can’t prove it, I’m just telling you I feel it in my gut.

And then can you only imagine the fallout?

It will be epic, one of the history books.

Here’s more, from ScotusBlog:

Over a dissent by two of the court’s conservative justices, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from removing a group of Venezuelan men currently in immigration custody in the northern region of Texas under an 18th century wartime law. The prohibition came in an unusual overnight order that followed a Friday evening appeal from lawyers representing the men, who told the justices that “dozens or hundreds” of detainees “are in imminent and ongoing jeopardy of being removed from the United States without notice and opportunity to be heard, in direct contravention of” a ruling by the justices less than two weeks ago.

In a brief unsigned order released to reporters just before 1 a.m. Saturday morning, the court noted that the dispute “is currently pending before” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Once that court acts, the court explained, Solicitor General D. John Sauer should file a response in the Supreme Court to the detainees’ request to block their removal “as soon as possible.” (After the justices issued their order, the 5th Circuit turned down the detainees’ request for a stay, calling it “premature.”) But, the court emphasized in clear language, the government should not “remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s order. They did not provide any explanation for their votes on Saturday morning, but the order indicated a statement from Alito would follow – a relatively rare move, but not unprecedented in light of the hour at which the order was issued and the speed with which the court acted.

The dispute is the latest chapter in the challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to remove noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang under a March 15 executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The order relied on the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court if Congress declares war or there is an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” The law has only been invoked three times in U.S. history, during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

Trump’s March 15 order found that a large Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua is “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” As a result, he ordered, any Venezuelans who are 14 years of age or older can be “apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”

A group of noncitizens in immigration custody went to federal court in Washington, D.C., even before Trump’s order was issued, seeking to stave off their removal and to challenge their designation under the Alien Enemies Act.

Their case was assigned to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who barred the government from removing the individual plaintiffs in the case and, later, anyone else under the Alien Enemies Act. In a hearing on the same day that the order was issued, Boasberg ordered the government to return any flights to remove noncitizens that had already taken off to return to the United States.

News reports indicated that more than 200 noncitizens were taken from the United States to El Salvador on March 15, with their planes landing there after Boasberg issued his written order. They were taken to El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security “mega” prison, where their heads were shaved.

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit turned down the Trump administration’s request to pause Boasberg’s order, then-Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris went to the Supreme Court. She told the justices that the dispute “presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security operations in this country – the President … or the Judiciary.”

In a ruling on April 7, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to put Boasberg’s order on hold. It explained that challenges to a designation under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought as a petition for habeas corpus – that is, a challenge to the legality of an individual’s detention – in the place where the detainees are being held (here, northern Texas), rather than in Washington as a challenge under the federal law governing administrative agencies.

The court also indicated that anyone detained under the Alien Enemies Act “must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the” law. Moreover, the court added, 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.”

The detainees went to court in the Northern District of Texas on April 16, asking a federal judge there to temporarily block the removal of Venezuelan men in immigration custody there under the Alien Enemies Act.

We will continue to bring you updates as we have them.

What do you think?

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.





Source link

Join us on Telegram
HELP! I'm down here in the swamp!
Welcome. You now reached the bottom, exactly like
JOE BIDEN
Commander in Thief
HELP! I'm down here in the swamp!
Welcome. You now reached the bottom, exactly like
JOE BIDEN
Commander in Thief
© U-S-NEWS.COM - Real News is Key