The U.S. Supreme Court has history-making cases in its docket. A major one was just ruled on.
And now this Supreme Court Justice is being blasted for an insane decision.
Supreme Court Backs Trump’s Deportation Plan, But Why Did Barrett Balk?
The Trump administration scored a major victory this week as the Supreme Court upheld its authority to use a historic 1798 law to deport dangerous gang members, delivering a win for President Donald Trump’s aggressive border security agenda. In a 5-4 decision, the court affirmed that the Alien Enemies Act could be wielded to expel members of the notorious Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua (TdA). This ruling is a testament to Trump’s commitment to protecting American communities from the scourge of transnational crime. Yet, one puzzling note emerged: why did Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, side with the dissenting liberal justices?
The decision came late Monday, reinforcing the administration’s ability to act decisively against foreign criminals infiltrating the United States. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a keen observer of legal matters, expressed bewilderment at Barrett’s dissent alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson. “The dissent is a little bit odd here, these four justices, particularly Justice Barrett. [I] wrote on my blog this morning, I still don’t quite know why Barrett joined the dissent,” Turley said on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom. His confusion is understandable—Barrett’s alignment with the liberal bloc raises questions about her reasoning on a case so clearly tied to public safety.
Turley noted that Barrett joined only a portion of the dissent, which argued that deportees under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to due process. But as he pointed out, the majority opinion already acknowledged this, making Barrett’s stance even more perplexing. “She joined a small part of it. Part of that was saying they get due process rights, but the majority said that. So I’m still rather confused as why Justice Barrett dissented,” Turley explained. For an administration fighting tooth and nail to secure the border, Barrett’s dissent must feel like an unexpected curveball from an ally.
The ruling stems from Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to the nation’s founding era, to fast-track the removal of gang members like those in TdA. Since taking office on January 20, Trump has made border security a cornerstone of his second term, issuing executive orders to designate TdA, Mexican drug cartels, and the El Salvadoran gang MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations. These designations signal a no-nonsense approach to dismantling the networks that exploit America’s borders, and the Supreme Court’s decision validates Trump’s strategy as both lawful and necessary.
However, not everyone in the judiciary has been on board. On March 15, District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., issued an injunction ordering the Trump administration to divert two planes carrying TdA members to El Salvador. Such judicial overreach has been a recurring obstacle for Trump, as activist judges attempt to hamstring his efforts to protect Americans. Turley didn’t mince words when addressing this pattern, noting that district judges like Boasberg have ignored clear signals from the Supreme Court about the misuse of nationwide injunctions and “forum-shopping” to obstruct federal policy.
“Even liberal justices have complained, you can’t run a government like this. You can’t have endless lilliputian attacks of over 600 judges holding up the business of the government,” Turley said. His analogy paints a vivid picture of rogue judges tying down the administration like Gulliver among the Lilliputians. The Supreme Court has repeatedly signaled its frustration with this trend, with a majority of justices emphasizing in oral arguments that such tactics must end. Yet, as Turley observed, some lower court judges simply aren’t listening, creating chaos for an administration trying to restore order.
The dissent, penned in part by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Barrett, argued that habeas relief should not be the sole avenue for challenging deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. “There is every reason to question the majority’s hurried conclusion that habeas relief supplies the exclusive means to challenge removal under the Alien Enemies Act,” Sotomayor wrote. While the dissent raised procedural concerns, it’s hard to see how this outweighs the urgent need to remove violent gang members from American soil. For Trump supporters, Barrett’s partial agreement with Sotomayor feels like a misstep from a justice expected to champion law and order.
Adding to the administration’s legal battles, Chief Justice John Roberts recently intervened to pause another judicial roadblock. District Judge Paula Xinis had ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia, a confirmed MS-13 member, to the United States—an astonishing demand given the gang’s brutal track record. Roberts’ swift action to halt Xinis’ ruling highlights the Supreme Court’s growing impatience with lower courts undermining national security. It’s a small but significant win for Trump, who has faced relentless opposition from judges seemingly more concerned with legal technicalities than public safety.
For the Trump administration, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a green light to press forward with its deportation agenda, unencumbered by the hesitations of dissenting justices or activist judges. The Alien Enemies Act, though centuries old, proves to be a powerful tool in modern hands, allowing the president to act swiftly against threats like TdA and MS-13. Trump’s supporters see this as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to prioritize American safety, cutting through the bureaucratic red tape that has long hampered immigration enforcement.
The question of Barrett’s dissent will linger for a while, especially because she was a particularly conservative Judge prior to arriving in the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump supporters, conservatives, libertarians, and average Americans are somewhat surprised at the way she’s been tossing and turning with her rulings since being confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court bench. She’s now seen as unreliable to provide critical wins for conservative jurisprudence.
“I’m sure Donald Trump is as well,” America’s Newsroom guest co-host John Roberts quipped, chuckling at the thought of the president scratching his head over Barrett’s vote. For now, though, the Trump administration can celebrate a hard-fought victory—one that reaffirms its authority to protect the nation from foreign criminals. With the Supreme Court’s backing, Trump’s vision for a secure America is one step closer to reality, even if a few unexpected detours remain.
The Conservative Column will bring you any more breaking U.S. Supreme Court updates.
