I listened to the oral arguments before the DC Circuit and read the opinion. One judge on the DC Circuit held that this case had to be brought as a habeas case and was in the wrong venue. The SCOTUS majority agreed with that concept that this is really a habeas case and so the venue was wrong. The SCOTUS did hold that all future detainees must be given notice and opportunity to contest grounds for deportation/removal which is one of the ACLU's main demands
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-trump-alien-enemies-act-judge-boasberg-rcna199052
A divided Supreme Court vacated temporary restraining orders issued by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., which had halted certain deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The court split 5-4, with Republican appointees in the majority and Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett dissenting alongside the court's three Democratic appointees.
In an unsigned "per curiam" ruling, the majority said detainees must bring their challenges in habeas corpus proceedings and must do so where they are confined. “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia,” the majority said.
The majority also said detainees under the act “must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded 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.”
Writing a dissent joined by the other two Democratic appointees and partially by Barrett, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the majority’s legal conclusion “suspect.” She said the court granted the government “extraordinary relief” and said the court did so “without mention of the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the Government’s attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.”
Here is a link to the opinion
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
I still believe that the Alien Enemies Act is not applicable and the majority expressly did not decide that issue
They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments.
There will be habeas actions that must be heard in Texas
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 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.
I still think that the DOJ/trump violated the trial court's injunction and should be held in contempt. Unfortunately, this case moots that ruling because the ruling was in the wrong venue according to the majority opinion.
The main benefit of the Alien Enemies Act was the claim by the DOJ that no Due Process had to be given to the deportees. This opinion is clear that detainees must be given due process.
= new reply since forum marked as read