Conservatives Fume Over Amy Coney Barrett Siding With Liberal Justices — Again

In a major ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated temporary restraining orders that had prohibited the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This act, historically used during wartime, was invoked by the Trump administration to fast-track the deportations. While the ruling was a procedural victory for the administration, it also revealed significant division among the justices, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett notably siding with the court’s liberal bloc on key parts of the dissent.

A Divided Court: Justice Barrett’s Unexpected Move

The Court’s 5-4 decision was based on procedural grounds. The majority ruled that the five Venezuelan plaintiffs challenging their deportation should have filed their case as individual habeas corpus petitions in Texas, where they were being held, rather than in Washington, D.C. Habeas corpus petitions typically involve detainees challenging the legality of their detention and seeking to be released. The majority’s ruling effectively overturned a lower court’s temporary injunctions, allowing the Trump administration to continue with its deportation plans.

However, Justice Barrett’s vote drew attention. Known for being appointed by Trump, Barrett has increasingly aligned herself with the Court’s liberal justices, which has frustrated some conservative circles. She joined portions of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, which criticized the majority’s rushed decision and questioned the validity of the procedural conclusions. While Barrett avoided the more sharply worded sections of Sotomayor’s dissent, her alignment with the liberals surprised many conservative supporters of Trump.

Sotomayor’s Dissent: A Critique of the Court’s Hasty Ruling

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor sharply criticized the majority for failing to respect due process and for intervening in the case prematurely. She argued that the Court’s decision to prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing their case under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was unjustified, given that the migrants were not challenging their detention but seeking protection from summary deportation. Sotomayor expressed concern that the Court had not allowed both sides to develop their arguments fully and that the decision was made too quickly, without the benefit of a complete record.

Sotomayor’s dissent also pointed out that habeas corpus was not an appropriate avenue for the plaintiffs’ case. Habeas corpus typically addresses the legality of custody, but in this situation, the plaintiffs were not seeking release from detention. They were simply trying to prevent their deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. Sotomayor emphasized that the majority’s decision left important legal questions unresolved, and that the case should have been handled with more thorough deliberation.

Backlash from Trump Supporters: Barrett Faces Criticism

Justice Barrett’s vote did not go unnoticed among Trump’s supporters, many of whom expressed frustration at her alignment with the Court’s liberals. Conservative figures like Senator Mike Lee of Utah voiced disappointment, and online commentators, including prominent MAGA personality “Catturd,” blasted Barrett for what they perceived as disloyalty. Critics accused her of betraying Trump and acting in alignment with the political left. This is not the first time Barrett has faced backlash from conservative circles; last month, she joined Chief Justice Roberts in siding with the liberal justices on a separate case related to foreign aid, further fueling frustration among Trump’s base.

Despite the controversy surrounding Barrett’s vote, the Supreme Court’s ruling represents a procedural victory for the Trump administration, allowing the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to proceed under wartime authority. However, the case has also sparked ongoing debate over the balance of power between the executive branch and the courts, and the rights of migrants seeking to challenge deportation orders. The legal battle over the Alien Enemies Act and its application to modern immigration issues is far from over, with many legal experts predicting further challenges to the Court’s decision in the future.