Althouse: "The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own, pausing a federal judge’s ruling..."

June 23, 2025

"The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own, pausing a federal judge’s ruling..."

"... that they must first be given a chance to show that they would face the risk of torture and letting the administration send men held at an American military base in Djibouti on to South Sudan. The court’s brief order gave no reasons and said the judge’s ruling would remain paused while the government pursues an appeal and, after that, until the Supreme Court acts. The court’s three liberal members issued a lengthy dissent."

The NYT reports.

21 comments:

mindnumbrobot said...: "allowed"

*groan*; 6/23/25, 4:41 PM
Peachy said...: Biden's illegal open border = equal opportunity / equal sleeper cell scattering.; 6/23/25, 4:49 PM
Mason G said...: "The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own..."

If they're doing that to migrants, can you imagine how much worse it must be for illegal aliens?; 6/23/25, 4:57 PM
rehajm said...: Why don’t Hawaiian judges simply overrule the Supremes?; 6/23/25, 5:00 PM
Iman said...: Fuck those Three “Liberal” Stooges!; 6/23/25, 5:10 PM
Leland said...: Supreme Court recognized the authority granted the Executive in the US Constitution to protect our borders and deport those that cross it illegally. If they can't go back to their point of origin, then they can be sent somewhere where they are wanted.

For those that care about refugees, this is great news. It means if the US is unable or unwilling to care for them; then the refugees can be located to a place that is more welcoming and accommodating. It is what the folks at Martha's Vineyard would do.; 6/23/25, 5:19 PM
Clyde said...: If the illegals want to choose where they are going, they can self-deport. Otherwise, they take their chances on where they end up. Their problem, not yours or mine.; 6/23/25, 5:23 PM
FormerLawClerk said...: The Supreme Court didn't "allow" Donald Trump to do anything.

He was already allowed to do it, by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court reversed an improper ruling by a lower court which tried to do something the Constitution prohibits.

It is the Constitution which allows Donald Trump to control immigration ... not the Supreme Court.; 6/23/25, 5:34 PM
Achilles said...: The court’s brief order gave no reasons and said the judge’s ruling would remain paused while the government pursues an appeal and, after that, until the Supreme Court acts. The court’s three liberal members issued a lengthy dissent."

There is no need to explain the obvious.

If they are in this country and they did not use any of the legal methods to enter the country they are illegal invaders and the constitution gives authority to one person to deal with them.

There is no legitimate reason for the courts to interfere in these matters.

Every judge who violates the clear words and intent of the constitution should be impeached immediately.; 6/23/25, 5:38 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Can you imagine if the illegal immigrants had won this ruling? If you are such a nasty & evil bastard that your own country won't take you back, you get to stay in the good ol' USofA until you commit another crime here, in which case we get to try and imprison you again, all at US taxpayer expense!; 6/23/25, 5:38 PM
Achilles said...: "The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration ..."

Allowed?

I think it is time to "Allow" the "judges" in these to spend a few years reading the constitution and then "Allow" then to take the bar exam again.; 6/23/25, 5:41 PM
Scott Gustafson said...: Apparently President Trump needs a permission slip from every federal judge before he is "allowed" to do anything. Where exactly is that found in our constitution?; 6/23/25, 6:11 PM
FormerLawClerk said...: I think it is time to "Allow" the "judges" in these to spend a few years reading the constitution ...

@Achilles: The Supreme Court didn't use this language in their decision. They did not say, for example, "We allow the government to do x ..."

The MEDIA chose these words. Specifically to mislead people into believing that the Supreme Court allows or does not allow Donald Trump to do things.

The Supreme Court, in point of fact, does no such thing.

So don't confuse the ruling with how the ruling is being presented by the fucking absolute scumbags running our nation's media companies.; 6/23/25, 7:32 PM
n.n said...: The double-edged scalpel of liberal use of injudicious injunctions. Hoisted by their Fani.; 6/23/25, 7:33 PM
Krumhorn said...: If they are co-equal branches of government, I’d like to see the day when the Executive and Congress start bossing the Article 3 courts around the way individual little popinjay judges do who breath the rarified air of the woodwork in their courtrooms and think they’ve won an election of some sort. This really has to stop.

- Krumhorn; 6/23/25, 7:34 PM
n.n said...: ... or is it injudicious use of liberal injunctions? Either way, hoisted on their petard with collateral damage. #WeCareNot; 6/23/25, 7:37 PM
Jimmy said...: The 3 females, and the other one who usually votes with them, prove once again what a joke our courts are...with those three, it is all about slavish worship of a corrupt and discredited ideology. They could care less about the constitution.
Just another in a very long list, of why people now see our court system as a joke.; 6/23/25, 8:46 PM
Lance said...: "I’d like to see the day when the Executive and Congress start bossing the Article 3 courts around"

Notice that in all the back and forth over USAID, firing executive employees, enforcing immigration laws, and sending surprise airstrikes, Congress hasn't actually _done_ anything? They haven't asked to intervene in any of the legal cases AFAIK. And they haven't passed any relevant legislation. Maybe Democrats will try to introduce articles of impeachment, but that won't go anywhere.

Apparently the Big Beautiful Bill won't even lock in the USAID cuts, because that's discretionary spending and can't be passed with reconcilation rules.

Congress is MIA.

Whoever your Senators and Representative are, Democrat, Republican or independent, you should strongly consider electing someone else next time.; 6/24/25, 12:20 AM
Enigma said...: Every Biden supporter: ZERO barriers for anyone to enter the USA, but impossible barriers for deportation. Also see their attitude toward guns (government gets everything it wants while the people are trusted with nothing). Also see Kamala on MJ use versus prosectuion.

"Rules for thee but not for me" - Democratic Party Motto

Trump: Any random idea of the day is the bestest idea ever. Yesterday -- ceasefire in the middle east accomplished. Today -- err, nevermind they are both idiots.; 6/24/25, 7:31 AM
Deep State Reformer said...: I agree with those previous posters that the term SCOTUS "allows" definitely rustles one's jimmies. Sen. Thune & Speaker Johnson please note; judicial reform is WAY more important than the fucking tax cuts Congress is obsessing about. If the courts don't halt their superintending legislature mode then make them stop by law. Let the tax cuts for millionaires & special interests can take second place for once, eh?; 6/24/25, 7:56 AM
Cappy said...: He made the court say Djobuti.; 6/24/25, 8:17 AM