SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5th u.s. circuit court of appeals
Supreme Court Extends Block on Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
One attorney in the case called the ruling "a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a gulag-type prison in El Salvador."
May 16, 2025
For the second time in less than a month, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled against the Trump administration's dubious use of an 18th century law to deport immigrants including at least one person with protected status without due process.
In a 7-2 ruling—with far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito dissenting—the high court found that President Donald Trump violated Venezuelan migrants' right to due process as a class by trying to fast-track their deportation to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador by invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act during peacetime.
The ruling is not a repudiation of Alien Enemies Act deportations and focuses solely on migrants' due process rights.
"Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"The detainees' interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty," the court's opinion states. "Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"But it is not optimal for this court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case," the court continued and, referring to the federal appellate court that "erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction," said that "we remand the case to the 5th Circuit for that purpose."
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead counsel in the case, said Friday that "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," Gelernt added.
The Supreme Court opinion noted the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man with protected status who was wrongfully deported to CECOT in March. Last month, the high court unanimously ruled that Trump must facilitate Abrego García's return to the United States. The Trump administration has resisted the order, despite the president proclaiming that "if the Supreme Court said, 'Bring somebody back,' I would do that."
Steve Vadeck, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, toldCNN Friday that "because lower courts have blocked use of the [Alien Enemies Act] in every other district in which the president has sought to invoke it, that means it's effectively pausing all removals under the act until the 5th Circuit—and, presumably, the Supreme Court itself—conclusively resolves whether they're legal and how much process is due if so."
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines—who was appointed by Trump—issued the first court ruling supporting Alien Enemies Act deportations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Major Smackdown' of 5th Circuit, Supreme Court Upholds Biden-Era Ghost Gun Ban
"Today, seven members of the Supreme Court followed the law and did not capitulate to special interests like the NRA, and our streets will be safer for it," said one Democratic senator.
Mar 26, 2025
In what one gun control group hailed as "a BIG win for public safety," the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Biden-era rule regulating ghost guns, which can be made using 3D printers, obtained without background checks, and smuggled into high-security locations.
The high court ruled 7-2—with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting—in Bondi v. Vanderstock that ghost guns, which are virtually untraceable, are firearms subject to regulation by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
NEW: The Supreme Court just upheld ATF’s critical ghost gun rule 👏👏👏 They ruled that ghost gun kits are legally firearms, meaning they must have serial numbers and can only be sold by licensed sellers after a background check. This is a BIG win for public safety.
[image or embed]
— GIFFORDS ( @giffords.org) March 26, 2025 at 7:57 AM
In 2022, the Biden administration enacted rules including a licensing requirement for companies making and selling ghost gun parts, mandating serial numbers for such components, and subjecting buyers to background checks. Ghost gun component manufacturers and Second Amendment advocates sued the government, claiming that ghost guns are not firearms as defined by the landmark Gun Control Act of 1968.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs in a 2023 decision striking down the ATF ghost gun rules.
However, while conceding that some ghost gun kits may not qualify as firearms under the law, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that others "'contain all components necessary' for 'a complete pistol' and can be completed in perhaps half an hour using commonly available tools."
"But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as instrument of combat is obvious," Gorsuch added. "Really, the kit's name says it all: 'Buy Build Shoot.'"
Today's decision is a pretty major smackdown for the 5th Circuit, which angrily rejected the ghost gun regulations as an egregiously unlawful assault on the rights of at-home gunsmiths. Gorsuch's opinion says the 5th Circuit badly misapplied the law in a number of ways. When you've lost Gorsuch...
— Mark Joseph Stern ( @mjsdc.bsky.social) March 26, 2025 at 7:16 AM
Responding to the ruling, David Pucino, the legal director and deputy chief counsel at the Giffords Law Center, said: "Ghost guns are the gun industry's way of skirting commonsense gun laws and arming dangerous people without background checks. We are thrilled that the Supreme Court has upheld the ATF rule that treats ghost guns as what they are: guns."
"We've seen how the rise in ghost guns has contributed to increases in crime and gun deaths in communities across the United States," Pucino added. "The Supreme Court's ruling is a huge win for public safety."
The legal division of Everytown for Gun Safety also hailed what it called the court's "lifesaving decision."
"We applaud the Supreme Court for doing the right thing by upholding a lawful and critical rule that protects public safety, and by rejecting the gun lobby's extreme legal agenda," Everytown Law executive director Eric Tirschwell said. "The ATF ghost gun rule has broad support from state and federal law enforcement, who have all affirmed it is crucial to keeping our communities safe—and data shows it is reducing the number of ghost guns recovered at crime scenes nationwide. We look forward to seeing this downward trend continue."
As Everytown noted, "early data indicates a drop in ghost gun recoveries at crime scenes since the ATF's rule went into effect," and "New York City, Baltimore, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Oakland, and other cities reported declines in ghost gun recoveries" in 2023.
Great news coming out of the Supreme Court! In a 7-2 decision, Justices have upheld the ban on ghost guns. These untraceable weapons have no legitimate use and are the perfect firearms for use in crime. This is a victory for public safety!
— Team ENOUGH ( @teamenough.org) March 26, 2025 at 7:16 AM
"At 17, my son, Guy, was badly wounded when he was shot with a ghost gun by a minor too young to legally purchase a pistol. No one should have to go through the trauma of learning that your child has been shot and may not survive," Denise Wieck, a volunteer with the gun control advocacy group Moms Demand Action, said following Wednesday's ruling.
"Though Guy suffers the consequences of the gunshot wound to this day—including an epilepsy diagnosis, anxiety, and the loss of an eye—we have both turned our grief into power through education and advocacy," Wieck added. "We are deeply relieved by today's ruling, which will help ensure that a tragedy like ours never happens again."
Democratic lawmakers also welcomed Wednesday's ruling.
"Ghost guns have been a terror on our streets, haunting our communities, and taking lives," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "For years, I have been warning of the dangers of these untraceable guns, and I strongly supported the Biden administration's rule to crack down on these treacherous kits."
"Today, seven members of the Supreme Court followed the law and did not capitulate to special interests like the NRA, and our streets will be safer for it," Schumer added, referring to the National Rifle Association. "Senate Democrats will continue to push Republicans to take commonsense actions to keep ghost guns off the streets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Huge Win': Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Against Texas Book Ban
"With this historic decision the court has moved decisively to ensure the constitutionally protected speech of authors, booksellers, publishers, and readers," said plaintiffs.
Jan 17, 2024
Texas bookstores, national trade associations, and other critics of book bans celebrated on Wednesday after a panel from an ultraconservative U.S. appeals court affirmed a decision to temporarily block part of a new state law intended to restrict what's allowed in public school libraries.
House Bill 900, or the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act, was signed last June by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. This case focuses on the section of the law requiring book vendors that sell to schools to submit ratings about sexual content to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and provide annual updates.
The contested law requires booksellers to label all material as "sexually explicit," "sexually relevant," or "no rating." Sexually explicit books must be removed from school library shelves and cannot be sold to districts, while sexually relevant material cannot be checked out without parental consent. The TEA can make changes to vendors' ratings.
"Our kids deserve the freedom to read, and their local schools and libraries are no place for censorious adults to push their religious and political agendas."
A pair of bookstores—Houston's Blue Willow and BookPeople in Austin—joined with the Association of American Publishers, American Booksellers Association, Authors Guild, and Comic Book Legal Defense Fund to challenge the law, arguing that it violates free speech rights and would subject plaintiffs to "irreparable personal and economic injury."
Judge Alan Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, an appointee of GOP former President Donald Trump, temporarily blocked the book-rating policy in September. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously agreed in a Wednesday opinion penned by Trump-appointed Judge Don Willett.
"The question presented is narrow: Are plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that READER violates their First Amendment rights? Controlling precedent suggests the answer is yes," wrote Willett, joined by Judges Jacques Wiener and Dana Douglas, appointees of former President George H.W. Bush and President Joe Biden, respectively.
While welcoming that the opinion does not apply to newly adopted standards for school library collection development, Texas Rep. Jared Patterson (R-106), who authored H.B. 900, expressed disappointment with the decision and urged Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unless Paxton appeals to the high court, the case will return to the district level for full arguments. While there is still a fight ahead, plaintiffs in the case and other critics of the law still celebrated on Wednesday.
"We are grateful for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' decisive action in striking down this unconstitutional law," the plaintiffs said in joint a statement. "With this historic decision the court has moved decisively to ensure the constitutionally protected speech of authors, booksellers, publishers, and readers, and prevent the state government from unlawfully compelling speech on the part of private citizens."
"The court's decision also shields Texas businesses from the imposition of impossibly onerous conditions, protects the basic constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, and lets Texas parents make decisions for their own children without government interference or control," they added. "This is a good day for bookstores, readers, and free expression."
As the Austin-American Statesman reported:
The decision was great news for Charley Rejsek, CEO of BookPeople.
"They recognized that this law as it's written would force us to divert time and effort away from our regular business," Rejsek said. "This was not good for any business."
Rejsek added that rating books by the April 1 deadline "was completely impossible to do."
Texas Republicans are among GOP policymakers across the country who have embraced right-wing efforts to ban books at the state and local levels in recent years, initiatives that have often focused on content related to sex, gender identity, and race.
During the 2022-23 school year, PEN America tracked 3,362 instances of book bans in U.S. public school classrooms and libraries cutting off students from 1,557 unique titles. The group noted that this represented a significant increase from figures the previous year and targeted authors were "most frequently female, people of color, and/or LGBTQ+ individuals."
Texas Freedom Network organizing director Seneca Savoie said in a statement Wednesday that "the courts should exist to protect and defend the rights of everyone in our communities, including our children. We applaud the 5th Circuit for upholding Judge Albright's initial ruling, rather than aiding our state's leaders in their endless culture wars and attacks on LGBTQIA+ Texans and our basic freedoms."
"Our kids deserve the freedom to read, and their local schools and libraries are no place for censorious adults to push their religious and political agendas," Savoie added. "While we were deeply disheartened that the 5th Circuit previously allowed this unconstitutional law to go into effect knowing that it violates the rights of Texas kids and their families, justice has finally been served."
As Willett noted in the Wednesday opinion, previously, "a different panel of this court granted the administrative stay."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular