What changes for Venezuelan migrants after the decision of the Supreme Court on the Law of Foreign Enemies?

These are the keys to the failure that did not touch the background of the subject:

1.- Divided decision and Trump celebration

The country’s maximum court was divided 5-4 when granting the Emergency aid request requested by him Department of Justice In the dispute on the use of the Foreign enemies law To quickly expel alleged gang members Aragua trainconsidered terrorist in the United States, without an audience.

LOOK: What does Ecuador Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater who participated in an operation in Guayaquil in Ecuador

The three progressive judges of the Court disagreed with the decision, and the judge Amy Coney Barrett, Member of the Conservative Wing of the Court, partially disagreed.

The government of Trump presented its emergency appeal after the order of the federal district judge James Boasbergthat temporarily prevented the President applying the Law of Foreign Enemies against five Venezuelans who demanded and a broader group of people who could be affected.

Trump praised the decision of the Supreme Court and said that It is “a great day for justice in the United States.”

“The Supreme Court has maintained the rule of law in our nation by allowing a president, whoever, can ensure our borders and protect our families and our country,” he wrote in Truth Social.

2.- The conditions for due process

However, the Immigrants They can no longer be deported in the way in which the first group was made. The ruling imposed certain conditions:

• Prior judicial hearing: Affected individuals should receive a notification about the reason for their deportation and have the opportunity to challenge their expulsion in a judicial hearing to try to achieve a habeas corpus Before being expelled from the country. This process must have “a reasonable time.”
• Adequate jurisdiction: Legal challenges must be presented in Texas, where migrants to whom you want to apply the law of foreign enemies, and not in Washington DC are detained, and in Washington DC

It should be noted that the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality or legality of the use of the foreign enemies law For rapid immigrants deportations. The bottom of the matter will continue to be debated in lower courts.

3.- Apply the fifth amendment

For Manuel Orozcodirector of the Migration, Remittance and Development Program of Dialogue Inter -Americanthe decision of the Supreme Court It can be considered a triumph of Trumpbecause the blockade that district judges may exercise has been rejected for reasons of jurisdiction.

Orozco He said to Commerce that in the legal issue, the Supreme Court said Fifth amendment of the Constitution (which protects people from self -incrimination and establishes that no one can be deprived of their rights without due legal process) applies to anyone, whether citizen or not, so the notification and the right to appeal is maintained.

“The matter is that the administration Trump You can choose district cuts that are favorable for them. So, due process is guaranteed, but it is not certain that whoever appeals can have a fair process, ”Orozco remarked.

He argued that generally in cases such as Kilmar Abrego Garcíathe migrant sent by error to the Megacárcel of El Salvador and whose return to the US demands a judge to the Trump government, a fair process is guaranteed.

“But in cases of someone who belonged to a gangHe had a criminal case but exhibited good conduct and was arrested, but could be subject to deportation and appeal, there is the person in the hands of the judge’s discretion, “Orozco noted.

He also argued that apparently a prudential time that is needed to appeal was not taken into account.

4.- The judges who reject the ruling

Most judges of the Supreme Court He said nothing about the flights that took off El Salvador Last month without guaranteeing an hearing that judges now say it is necessary.

The AP agency argued that in its discrepant opinion, The three liberal judges affirmed that the Trump administration has tried to avoid judicial review in this case and that the Court “now rewards the government for their behavior.”

For its part, the judge Sonia Sotomayor He said that it would be more difficult for people to challenge deportations individually where they are detained, and pointed out that the administration has also said in another case before the court than the court than It cannot return to people who have been deported to the prison of El Salvador by mistake.

“We, as a nation and as a court of justice, We should be better than this”, Sotomayor wrote.

The lawyers of the American Union for civil liberties (ACLU) filed the lawsuit before the judge Boasberg on behalf of five Venezuelans who were detained in Texashours after it was made public that Trump would use the Law of Foreign Enemies for Deportations and while the immigration authorities led to hundreds of Venezuelans to airplanes to be taken to El Salvador.

The Aclu lawyer Lee Gellnt said that the crucial point of the Supreme Court ruling was that people should have due process to challenge their deportation. “It’s an important victory,” he said.

Judge Boasberg imposed a temporary suspension of deportations and also ordered the return to the United States of the planes sent to El Salvador, which did not happen.

Boasberg held a hearing last week to determine if the government disregarded its order. The Trump administration invoked the “privilege of state secret” and refused to provide additional information about deportations.

5.- The Law of Foreign Enemies

In 1798 the United States was on the verge of war with France. In fear that the “foreigners” who lived in the country sympathized with the French, the Federalist Partyof the then president John Adamspromoted the Foreign enemies law.

The law grants the President the authority to stop and deport to citizens of countries with which USA I was at war, without the need for judgment. Its purpose was to prevent possible internal conspiracies or threats by foreigners considered hostile.

From its approval, The law has only applied three times: during the War of 1812, the first and Second World War.

During World War II, when fear of foreigners was extended throughout the United States, the law was used for the massive internment of people of German, Italian and, especially Japanese people. It is estimated that 120,000 Japanese, including US citizens, were imprisoned during the war.