The Supreme Court in the USA blocks the use of alien enemies by the Trump management | Donald Trump News

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted an emergency proposal from a group of migrants in Texas, which is exposed to the use of a war law from the 18th century to accelerate its distances.

The unsigned decision on Friday (PDF) is another blow for the administration of President Donald Trump, who tried to use the extraterrestrial enemy law of 1798 to quickly deport immigrants from the USA without papers.

Only two conservative judges reflected: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

While the High Court does not yet make the merits of Trump's use of the Autien Enemies Act, there were Venezuelan migrants “relapse to injunctive relief” according to the centuries -old law.

“We have long since found that” no person “should be removed from the United States at a certain point in time,” wrote the majority of court majority in their judgment.

It confirmed an earlier opinion that migrants in the United States are justified before their deportation – in other words, they are entitled to a fair hearing in the judicial system.

The case on Friday was brought by two unnamed migrants from Venezuela, which were only identified by initials. You will be recorded in a internment camp in North Texas if you are written off.

The Trump government has accused her and others from Venezuela to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang. It continued to try to paint migration without papers to the USA as an “invasion” and to combine the activities of Tren de Aragua in the USA with the Venezuelan government, an assertion that a recently released secret service memo disputes.

That, as the Trump administration argued, justifies the use of the extraterrestrial enemy law, which was only used three times in the history of US history -and only in times of war.

But Trump's use of the Autien Enemies Act has created a legal counter -reaction, with several US district courts negotiating applications from migrants who feared in accordance with the law.

Several judges have blocked the use of the law for accelerated distances. However, a judge in Pennsylvania decided that the Trump administration could use the law – provided that there are an appropriate message to those who face the deportation. She suggested 21 days.

The Supreme Court did not think about whether Trump's use of the law was earned on Friday. Instead, his decision – a total of 24 pages, including a dissent – raised the question of whether the Venezuelans in question deserve the relief from their upcoming deportation according to the law.

The majority of the nine-righteous bank found that “evidence”, which had seen in the case, pointed out that the government had actually taken steps in the afternoon of April 18 to refer to the law on the enemies of the alien, and even “transported and later returned from their adhesion to an airport”.

The judges claimed that they had the right to weigh up the case to prevent the migrants “irreparable damage” and to claim their responsibility in the case. Otherwise, she pointed out that a deportation could bring migrants beyond their reach.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh went one step further in a separate statement and asked the Supreme Court to make a final and binding judgment on this matter instead of just granting this a petition.

“The circumstances require an immediate and final solution, which can probably only be provided by this Court of Justice,” he said, agreed with the majority's decision.

In their dissent, Thomas and Alito argued that the Supreme Court did not give a lower court enough time to decide on the emergency application.

After the verdict, Trump hit the social truth and presented the majority of the Supreme Court as excessive to migrants.

“The Supreme Court does not allow us to get criminals from our country!” Trump wrote in the first of two successive articles.

In the second page, he called the decision on Friday the sign of a “bad and dangerous day in America”. He complained that the confirmation of the right to a proper procedure would lead to a “long, lengthy and expensive legal process”, which may take many years for every person.

He also argued that the high court prevented him from exercising his executive authority.

“The United States's Supreme Court does not allow me to do what I was chosen,” he wrote, introducing himself to “Bedlam” in which extended deportation hearings in the United States would lead to “Bedlam”.

His government has long accused the courts of interference into his agenda. However, critics have warned that Trump's actions – in particular alleged efforts to ignore court procurement – undermine the constitutional system of the US control and balance of the United States.

In a declaration after the judgment, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the decision of the court as a bulwark against human rights violations.

“The court's decision to move away is a powerful reproduction of the government's attempt to hurry to people in a Gulag prison in El Salvador,” said Lee, deputy director of the ACLU immigration law.

“The use of a war authority during peace, without enabling just a proper procedure, raises questions of profound importance.”

The Supreme Court currently has a conservative super majority with six right -handed judges and three left -wing.

Three of them were appointed by Trump himself. This three -sided with the majority.