The provided text discusses a Supreme Court decision that halted the deportation of individuals to South Sudan. The author argues that this decision, issued on the “shadow docket” without reasoning, undermines the essential principles of due process.
HereS a breakdown of the key points:
Due Process Requirements: Historically,due process requires meaningful notice,an possibility to be heard,and review by an impartial adjudicator when someone faces the loss of life,liberty,or property.
Supreme Court’s Action: The Supreme Court issued an order on its shadow docket to halt a lower court ruling concerning the deportation of men to South Sudan. Crucially, the Court provided no reasoning for this order, and a subsequent “clarifying” ruling also lacked justification.
Justice Sotomayor’s Dissent: Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, strongly dissented, arguing that the majority was “rewarding lawlessness” and undermining the principle that the US is a “government of laws, not of men.”
ICE’s Response: Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s intervention, ICE has reportedly offered minimal constitutional protections for individuals it intends to deport to “third countries” (countries other than their origin, where they may face harm).
Author’s Concern: The author expresses concern that the Supreme Court’s “reasonless decision” appears to authorize the deportation of detainees to third countries without due process.
Potential for Future Challenges: The author anticipates that immigrant detainees with legal depiction will challenge ICE’s new memo in court, and the Supreme Court will likely have to revisit the issue. The author hopes the Court will reaffirm its prior stance that due process is not a “mere feint” and requires more than minimal notice before deportation.* Shadow docket Criticism: The author notes that some Supreme Court justices object to accusations of using the shadow docket to make substantive law, but argues that the lack of reasoning in the D.H.S. v. D.V.D. case suggests or else.
In essence, the article criticizes the Supreme Court for a decision that, in the author’s view, bypasses established due process protections and allows for possibly harmful deportations without adequate legal safeguards.
