
The Supreme Court just stripped thousands of immigrants of their right to due process
In a short, one-paragraph order, the Republican justices ruled on Monday evening that President Donald Trump may effectively nullify a federal law and an international treaty that is supposed to protect immigrants from torture. The Court's order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. does not explain the GOP's justices' reasoning, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor responds to their silent decision in a 19-page dissent joined by her two Democratic colleagues.
The Court's order is only temporary, and will permit Trump to send immigrants to countries where they may be tortured while the D.V.D. case is fully litigated. It is possible that one or more of the Court's Republicans could reverse course at a later date. But it is hard to know what arguments might persuade them to do so because the justices in the majority did not explain why they decided this case the way they did.
SCOTUS, Explained
Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Federal law requires that the United States shall not 'expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.' This statute implements a treaty, known as the Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified over three decades ago.
Trump's lawyers, however, claim that they uncovered a loophole that permits the Trump administration to bypass these laws, at least with respect to some immigrants.
Typically, before a noncitizen may be removed from the United States, they are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. The immigration judge will inform the person facing deportation which countries they might be sent to, allowing the noncitizen to object to any countries where they fear they may be tortured. If the immigration judge determines that these objections are sufficiently serious to trigger the Convention Against Torture's protections, the judge may still issue an order permitting the immigrant to be deported — but not to the nation or nations the immigrant raised objections about.
Related Trump asks the Supreme Court to neutralize the Convention Against Torture
The D.V.D. case involves noncitizens who have already been through this process. In their case, an immigration judge determined that they may be deported, but not to specific countries. After the hearing process was complete, however, the Trump administration unexpectedly announced that it would deport the D.V.D. plaintiffs to other nations that were not previously under consideration.
That means that no immigration judge has determined whether these immigrants may be sent to those particular nations, and the immigrants have not been given a meaningful opportunity to object to the new countries where they are about to be deported. Using this loophole, the Trump administration seeks to deport them without a new hearing.
The Trump administration, moreover, appears to have intentionally selected countries where the noncitizens are likely to be unsafe. It wishes to deport many of these immigrants to South Sudan, for example, a country that was recently in a civil war, and where an uneasy peace appears to be collapsing. Others are slated for removal to Libya despite the fact that, according to Sotomayor's dissent, they 'would have landed in Tripoli in the midst of violence caused by opposition to their arrival.'
The Trump administration, in other words, appears to have created a deadly trap for immigrants who fear torture in their home nations. These noncitizens may object to being sent home under the Convention Against Torture, and an immigration judge may even rule in their favor. But the Trump administration may still send them somewhere else even more dangerous.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mike Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell pardon would give him ‘pause,' won't get ahead of Trump
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said he believes Ghislaine Maxwell, a key associate of Jeffrey Epstein currently serving 20 years in prison for conspiring to sexually abuse minors, should face "a life sentence." "If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press" July 27. "I think she should have a life sentence, at least." His remarks to NBC come as many, including supporters of President Donald Trump, clamor for testimony from Maxwell. Some followers of the case have proposed a pardon in exchange, but Trump told reporters on July 25 he hadn't considered the move. "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about," the president said. Epstein was charged with sexually trafficking minors and died by suicide while in detention in 2019. Maxwell, his longtime girlfriend, has been accused of recruiting minors for the disgraced financier's predation. Maxwell maintains her innocence and is appealing her 2021 sex-trafficking conviction. Johnson in his interview with NBC reiterated that pardons aren't up to him, telling the outlet, "obviously that's a decision of the president." "I won't get in front of him," Johnson said. "That's not my lane." But, later in the interview he noted, "It's hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it." "So, again, not my decision," he added, "but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would." The Trump administration for weeks has faced backlash over its handling of Epstein's case. Critics from Democratic lawmakers to prominent Republicans and slices of Trump's voter base accuse the president and other officials of not being transparent with the American people. The speaker has faced his own ongoing Epstein-related criticism, as some House Republicans have zeroed in on the Justice Department's recent review of Epstein's case and are calling for related documents to be released publicly. Democrats in Congress have piled on too. Reps. Ro Khanna, D-California, and Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced a bipartisan measure to force the Trump administration's hand in releasing the federal government's files. Also on "Meet The Press," the pair split on pardoning Maxwell. "That would be up to the president," Massie said. "But if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let's get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of." Khanna disagreed, saying Maxwell shouldn't receive a pardon. "Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify," the California Democrat said. "But she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence." Contributing: Bart Jansen and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Mike Johnson reacts to possible pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell


New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats self-own bragging about inflation shows the left has learned NOTHING
Everybody makes mistakes. Not everyone makes the same mistakes over and over again. Last week, the geniuses in charge of maintaining the Democratic Party's social media picked at a fresh wound — and showed, again, exactly why it lost the 2024 election. The blue team's official X account shared a line chart showing the change in the price of various groceries — meat, dairy, produce, etc. — over time, and asserting that 'prices are higher today than they were on [sic] July 2024.' 'Trump's America,' read the caption. The problem? The last part of the line barely went up. The blue team's official X account, with the caption 'Trump's America,' shared a chart showing the change in the price of various groceries, asserting that 'prices are higher today than they were on [sic] July 2024.' Eric Daugherty, /X And what it actually showed was a massive increase in prices between 2021 and 2024. In other words: over the course of former President Joe Biden's White House tenure. 'I would just advise Democrats not to post about inflation given their track record,' suggested conservative influencer A.G. Hamilton. 'Might save them the embarrassment of having to delete their posts after getting dunked on' — which is exactly what they did. 'This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight!' marveled Fox Business host Stuart Varney. And of course Team Trump got in on the action. The problem with the chart was that it actually showed a massive increase in prices between 2021 and 2024 – when Biden was president. RapidResponse47/X What's notable about the braindead blunder, though, is not the blunder itself. It was that it represented yet another admission, eight and a half months after they surrendered the presidency to Donald Trump for the second time in three election cycles, that the Democrats still haven't made a sincere effort at diagnosing the reasons for their unpopularity — much less addressing them. A new Wall Street Journal poll found that their party continues to suffer as a result — to the point that just 33% of Americans hold a favorable view of it, and 63% view it unfavorably. Both Donald Trump (-7) and the GOP (-11) are also underwater, but may as well be polling as well as ice cream compared to the Democrats. The same holds true of the public's view of various issues; voters still trust the GOP more than the alternative when it comes to the economy, inflation, immigration and foreign policy. If that doesn't wake Democrats up to the provenance of all their political pain, nothing will. The Left has long relied on comforting fallacies to numb the discomfort that accompanies defeat. After 2016, elected Democrats and their media allies insisted that Trump's shocking victory was only possible thanks to Russian meddling. And now, they're laboring under the misimpression that return to power can be attributed to Republicans' superior, but decepting messaging — an almost supernatural ability to compel Americans to believe that which isn't so. If only they could convince the public of the truth, they'd surely prevail. But the cold, hard truth is that it's always been about the substance, stupid — as the unflattering data they so proudly shared last week demonstrates. Kamala Harris was deposited into the dustbin of history because she was the top lieutenant in an administration that had proven a miserable failure long before her boss's implosion last summer. Americans spent the entirety of the Biden years telling pollsters that their lives were demonstrably, palpably worse as a result of historic price hikes. Biden & Co. responded to these pleas for relief by denying the existence of inflation until they couldn't any longer. Then, when they finally did implicitly admit to the effects of the nearly $2 trillion boondoggle they passed in 2021, they slapped the name 'Inflation Reduction Act' on yet another profligate spending bill that every layman in America knew would only compound the problem. There are similar stories to be told about Americans' dissatisfaction with Biden's approach to foreign policy, his abdication of his duty to secure the border, and his championing of a radical social agenda that maintains up is down, left is right, and black is white. Their stubborn refusal to grapple with this incontrovertible truth is also reportedly set to be reflected in an upcoming 2024 autopsy conducted by the DNC. The New York Times reports that it will 'steer clear of the decisions made by the Biden-turned-Harris campaign,' and instead 'focus more on outside groups and super PACs that spent hundreds of millions of dollars aiding the Biden and Harris campaigns through advertising, voter registration drives and turnout efforts.' It's like watching a restaurant serving inedible food invest in new plateware. The gripe has never been with the Democrats' presentation or voters' tastes. It's with the product itself.

USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
Mike Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell should serve 'life sentence,' opposes potential pardon
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said he believes Ghislaine Maxwell, a key associate of Jeffrey Epstein currently serving 20 years in prison for conspiring to sexually abuse minors, should face "a life sentence." "If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press" July 27. "I think she should have a life sentence, at least." His remarks to NBC come as many, including supporters of President Donald Trump, clamor for testimony from Maxwell. Some followers of the case have proposed a pardon in exchange, but Trump told reporters on July 25 he hadn't considered the move. "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about," the president said. Epstein was charged with sexually trafficking minors and died by suicide while in detention in 2019. Maxwell, his longtime girlfriend, has been accused of recruiting minors for the disgraced financier's predation. Maxwell maintains her innocence and is appealing her 2021 sex-trafficking conviction. Johnson in his interview with NBC reiterated that pardons aren't up to him, telling the outlet, "obviously that's a decision of the president." "I won't get it in front of him," Johnson said. "That's not my lane." But, later in the interview he noted, "It's hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it." "So, again, not my decision," he added, "but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would." The Trump administration for weeks has faced backlash over its handling of Epstein's case. Critics from Democratic lawmakers to prominent Republicans and slices of Trump's voter base accuse the president and other officials of not being transparent with the American people. The speaker has faced his own ongoing Epstein-related criticism, as some House Republicans have zeroed in on the Justice Department's recent review of Epstein's case and are calling for related documents to be released publicly. Democrats in Congress have piled on too. Reps. Ro Khanna, D-California, and Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced a bipartisan measure to force the Trump administration's hand in releasing the federal government's files. Also on "Meet The Press," the pair split on pardoning Maxwell. "That would be up to the president," Massie said. "But if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let's get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of." Khanna disagreed, saying Maxwell shouldn't receive a pardon. "Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify," the California Democrat said. "But she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence." Contributing: Bart Jansen and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY