By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Updated 12:35 PM CDT, May 15, 2025
Live updates for this event have ended. See what you missed below, and find more of our coverage on the Supreme Court at apnews.com. .. https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments related to President Donald Trump‘s birthright citizenship executive order, which denies citizenship to children who are born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
But the question at the heart of the case could impact whether Trump’s executive orders could be enacted.
Courts vs Trump - Supreme court blocks Trump bid to resume deportations under 1798 law
"The Courts Versus Trump, Then and Now "2 more judges block Trump administration's use of Alien Enemies Act to remove certain migrants Solid democratic institutions are fighting back against the most vicious and dangerous president the United States had ever had. They will win, too. This time, yet .. the war."
Administration’s appeal to quickly deport Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act rejected with two dissenting
Lauren Gambino and agencies Sat 17 May 2025 08.47 AEST
The supreme court has rejected the Trump administration’s request to remove a temporary block on deportations of Venezuelans under a rarely used 18th-century wartime law.
Over two dissenting votes, the justices acted on an emergency appeal from lawyers for Venezuelan men who have been accused of being gang members, a designation that the administration says makes them eligible for rapid removal from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
The court, which returned the case to a federal appeals court, had already imposed a temporary halt on deportations from a north Texas detention facility in a middle-of-the-night order issued last month.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Donald Trump responded on social media, with a post that claimed: “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”
“The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,” Trump added in a subsequent post, in which he also claimed, falsely, that the justices “ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally, are not allowed to be forced out without going through a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person.”
The case is among several making their way through the courts over the president’s proclamation in March calling the Tren de Aragua gang a foreign terrorist organization engaged in an “invasion of the United States”, and as such subject to deportation under the 1798 statute. However, a recently declassified memo showed US intelligence agencies rejected a key claim the administration made to justify invoking the wartime law – that Venezuela’s government was orchestrating the gang’s operations.
The supreme court case stems from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas, challenging Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. At issue is whether people must have the opportunity to contest their removal from the United States, without determining whether Trump’s invocation of the law was appropriate.
“We recognize the significance of the government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the constitution,” the justices said in an unsigned opinion.
In a statement, Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel, said: “The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador. The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.”
At least three federal judges have said Trump was improperly using the AEA to speed deportations of people the administration says are Venezuelan gang members.
On Tuesday, a judge in Pennsylvania signed off on the use of the law.
The court-by-court approach to deportations under the AEA flows from another supreme court order that took a case away from a judge in Washington DC and ruled detainees seeking to challenge their deportations must do so where they are held.
The justices said in April that people must be given “reasonable time” to file a challenge.
The court has rejected the 12 hours the administration has said would be sufficient, but has not otherwise spelled out how long it meant.
The US district judge Stephanie Haines ordered immigration officials to give people 21 days in her opinion in which she otherwise said deportations could legally take place under the AEA.
In its opinion, the supreme court pointed to the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident the administration admitted it wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador as a result of an “administrative error”. The president and other high-ranking administration officials have repeatedly said Ábrego García would never be allowed back in the US, despite a supreme court order instructing the government to “facilitate” his return.
Highlighting the administration’s argument that it was “unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador”, the court concluded that the “detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty”.
“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process right to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the justices wrote.
However, the court also made clear that it was not blocking other ways the government may deport people.
The decision comes one day after the court appeared troubled by an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office that seeks to end birthright citizenship, which contradicts precedent upholding the plain text of the 14th amendment as granting citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.
Judge tosses Trump order punishing the law firm WilmerHale
"The Courts Versus Trump, Then and Now "2 more judges block Trump administration's use of Alien Enemies Act to remove certain migrants'"
See also: Law firms fighting back and winning. [...]Judge John Bates, a long-serving federal district court judge in Washington, DC, ruled that Trump's executive order punishing the law firm Jenner & Block was not only unconstitutional, but that Trump's actions were "doubly violative of the Constitution." https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=176244110
The ruling is the third time a federal judge struck down one of President Donald Trump’s orders targeting a prominent law firm.
May 27, 2025 at 6:27 p.m. EDTYesterday at 6:27 p.m. EDT
President Donald Trump’s push to punish law firms suffered another defeat Tuesday, as a federal judge in D.C. struck down his executive order aimed at the law firm WilmerHale.
The firms that sued have found the courts very receptive to their arguments. Last week, a judge struck down Trump’s order against Jenner & Block, while another judge blocked his punishments for Perkins Coie on May 2. A ruling in the case of the fourth firm, Susman Godfrey, is still pending, though a judge has temporarily blocked most of Trump’s penalties for that business.
In a 73-page opinion accompanying his order, Leon wrote that it was necessary to block Trump’s punishments for WilmerHale to preserve “the independent and adversarial nature of our judicial system.”
Leon wrote that the Founding Fathers had understood the necessity of an independent judiciary and independent lawyers. Trump’s orders targeting law firms, the judge said, were “a staggering punishment” challenging that very concept.
“I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional,” Leon wrote. “Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!”
WilmerHale had said in its lawsuit that Trump was punishing the firm for cases it had taken, noting among other things that it had filed a suit this year challenging Trump’s dismissal of inspectors general and previously represented some of his political opponents.
The firm praised Leon’s ruling on Tuesday, with a spokesperson saying in a statement that his decision “strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients.”
The Justice Department has defended Trump’s orders in court, saying that they were not intended to retaliate against the firms.
The Trump administration has so far not appealed the rulings striking down Trump’s orders punishing Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block. The Justice Department and White House did not respond to requests for comment about the WilmerHale ruling.
Trump issued his order against WilmerHale in March, accusing the firm of “employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice.” He singled out for criticism the firm’s employment of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Trump during his first term, and two of Mueller’s former deputies. (Mueller and one of his deputies retired from WilmerHale in 2021, according to the firm.)
Leon wrote that Trump’s order was intended to drive clients from WilmerHale and said that it was succeeding. While Leon had previously temporarily blocked most of Trump’s penalties for the firm in March, he wrote that nonetheless, “existing clients have been curtailing their relationships with WilmerHale and new clients are taking their business elsewhere.”
Trump’s order, Leon said, was “crafted to cripple the firm.” He also suggested this was not lost on the firms making deals with Trump, saying that they had “capitulated” to him in making those agreements.
Mark Berman is a national reporter for The Washington Post who covers law enforcement and criminal justice issues. Send him secure tips and messages on Signal at markberman.25 follow on X@markberman
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
