Meritless litigation

After remarkable Supreme Court rebuke, Trump administration slams ‘meritless litigation’

The White House’s statement comes as the Trump administration faces a firestorm of criticism from Democrats and legal experts over due process and the rule of law.

By Ali Bianco

The White House slammed the flood of lawsuits against its deportation agenda following a Supreme Court ruling that will temporarily block its efforts to deport Venezuelan nationals in Texas under the Alien Enemies Act.

The rebuke of the litigation — and the Trump administration’s claims that it is following the rule of law — comes amid an onslaught of criticism from Democrats and legal experts who have blasted President Donald Trump for igniting what they have described as a growing constitutional crisis that threatens the due process of immigrants across the country.

“We are confident in the lawfulness of the Administration’s actions and in ultimately prevailing against an onslaught of meritless litigation brought by radical activists who care more about the rights of terrorist aliens than those of the American people,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO in a statement.

The statement was issued more than 12 hours after a remarkable loss for the administration in front of the nation’s highest court. In an apparent 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ordered the administration to pause any plans to deport a group of Venezuelan men in north Texas, following a mad dash by the ACLU to prevent what it was calling a violation of due process for immigrants receiving notice of their “imminent” removal. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas publicly dissented.

The ruling from the Supreme Court was astonishing, coming in the early morning Saturday, mere hours after a challenge was filed by attorneys representing the migrants. It came so quickly that some lower courts had not yet ruled and the government had not even submitted a response to the Supreme Court — and so fast that Alito’s statement dissenting from the decision was only noted as “to follow,” having still not yet been released as of Saturday afternoon.

Shortly after the White House’s statement, the Justice Department submitted a response to what it called an “unprecedented injunction” from the high court. The DOJ emphasized that an appeals court early Saturday morning rejected a motion from the ACLU as premature, and that the group of immigrants in north Texas had not yet been certified as a class.

The response, penned by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, asks the court to, at a minimum, clarify that its order does not preclude the administration from deporting the Venezuelan detainees in Texas under other authorities beyond the AEA.

Several Democrats called the decision a win, saying the high court stopped illegal deportations and what Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez called an “out of control” Trump administration from removing immigrants with potentially less than 24 hours notice.

“These men were in imminent danger of spending their lives in a horrific foreign prison without ever having had a chance to go to court,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt told POLITICO Saturday. “We are relieved that the Supreme Court has not permitted the administration to whisk them away the way others were just last month.”

The ruling is the latest influencing a growing battle between Democrats and Republicans on how the Trump administration will enforce court orders and the rule of law.

Trump has increasingly taken shots at lower court judges for issuing nationwide stops on his immigration agenda. He launched personal attacks on U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg — who ordered the administration to turn around planes during the first AEA deportations in March, which the administration ignored — and at appeals court judges who have further blocked the administration’s policy.

Leavitt’s Saturday afternoon statement did not target any Supreme Court justice, although Trump has criticized them in the past when they ruled against him. While only Alito and Thomas publicly noted how they ruled in the decision, it is possible, if not likely, that all three of the president’s picks on the court from his first term ruled against him here: Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

Notably, many of Trump’s normally verbose cadre of communication staffers have not weighed in on the ruling on social media. But a post on Saturday from the White House liaison for the Department of Homeland Security, Paul Ingrassia, dressed down the U.S. judicial system, claiming the high court is actively working against the president and is “infected with a parasitical ideology that denies reason and common sense.”

“The judges in law courts today, including the majority in the nation’s Highest Court, have absolutely no understanding of law and its proper function and role,” Ingrassia wrote, taking a shot at the Supreme Court’s conservative, Trump-appointed justices.

Democrats and legal experts have accused the administration of violating the rule of law by defying an earlier Supreme Court order to “facilitate” the return of illegally deported Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and the district court order to turn around deportation flights in March.

The administration said in court filings that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was an “administrative error,” as he had an active court order barring his removal to El Salvador for fear of persecution. Trump and his top advisers have been clear that they believe Abrego Garcia will remain in El Salvador.

Top Trump officials slammed Democrats this week for coming to Abrego Garcia’s defense, branding Democrats as backing an alleged MS-13 gang member while Trump platforms families who’ve suffered violence by undocumented immigrants. A federal judge has previously said the government’s evidence that he is a gang member is flimsy.

“If he tattoos like MS-13, beats women like MS-13, and tramples the law like MS-13—THEN HE’S PROBABLY MS-13,” the White House posted on X on Saturday. Other accounts connected to Trump, including Trump’s War Room, are coalescing around one message: “DeMS-13.”

After Saturday’s early morning ruling, some avid Trump supporters are questioning whether the administration should follow Supreme Court orders and allow immigrants to face individual trials. An April 7 Supreme Court ruling that vacated the lower court’s block on deportations under the AEA said that all immigrants accused of being an “alien enemy” must be given notice and reasonable time to challenge their deportation in court.

But Trump backer and billionaire Bill Ackman posted that having courts individually try the cases of millions of immigrants will cause the country to “lose the values our democratic system was intended to preserve.”

“This is the hard truth,” Elon Musk — the billionaire Tesla CEO and special adviser to Trump — posted on X, agreeing with Ackman. Some members of Congress have also reposted Ackman’s assertion.

Top Trump adviser Stephen Miller cast doubt on Saturday on what that due process looks like for these migrants under the second Trump administration, while reposting others questioning how judges can shut down what they have called Trump’s election mandate to enact deportations.

“We live in a society where foreign alien terrorists have unlimited free legal representation,” Miller wrote on X. “But Americans whose communities have been stolen from them are left without recourse. We are rebalancing the scales.”

Trump stated previously that he does intend to follow court orders, but he has also pushed back at how much authority the courts have over his executive power on immigration. His administration has argued the courts cannot compel him in the foreign policy sphere.

“We’re getting them out. And that’s why I was elected. A judge wasn’t elected to do that — I was elected to do that. And we’re doing it in record fashion,” Trump told reporters on Friday.