Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
The Supreme Court on Monday in a five-to-four per curiam ruling vacated Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining orders that barred the government from deporting alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang pursuant to President Trump’s proclamation. The Court determined that challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) must be brought through habeas petitions. The Court also stated that the individuals detained under the AEA “must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” Justice Sotomayor wrote a 17-page dissent, joined in full by Justices Kagan and Jackson, and joined in part by Justice Barrett. (Order.)
Today, the Court granted the government’s application for a stay of a district court order enjoining the government from firing employees at six federal agencies. The Supreme Court’s order stays the preliminary injunction pending the disposition of the government’s appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if sought. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson would have denied the application. See a prior Roundup for background on the case. As Josh Gerstein notes, another district court order requiring the administration to reinstate probationary employees at 18 federal agencies still stands. (Order.) (Gerstein, Politico.)
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent a department-wide memo on Monday evening announcing changes to DOJ’s digital asset enforcement priorities. (Memo, WAPO.)
Several commentators analyzed the Supreme Court’s Alien Enemies Act ruling. In a conversation with Bob Bauer, Jack Goldsmith argued that the per curiam’s statement on judicial review is a “significant loss” for the administration. (Executive Functions.) Ian Millhiser considered the decision “a significant victory for Trump.” (Vox.) Steve Vladeck wrote that the ruling suggests the Court is “willing to hide behind less-than-obvious legal artifices to make it harder for federal courts to actually restrain conduct by the current administration that everyone believes to be unlawful.” (One First.) Ed Whelan suggested that the per curiam opinion “might best be regarded as an exercise of judicial statesmanship.” (The National Review.)
Bob Bauer contended that the Justice Department’s arguments in the Eric Adams case represent a radical shift in the department’s approach to federal prosecutions.(Executive Functions.)
Benjamin Wittes considered the various ways the Abrego Garcia case might shake out. (Lawfare.)
Jed Rubenfeld contended that legal arguments against Trump’s tariffs “face a steep uphill climb.” He noted that if the major questions doctrine applied, it might plausibly undermine Trump’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But Rubenfeld doesn’t think the doctrine applies to presidents. (Free Press.)
Vladeck suggested that the Court’s treatment of the major questions doctrine indicates it might invoke it here to strike down Trump’s tariffs. (One First.)
Samuel Bagenstos criticized the decision of the Office of Management and Budget to stop publicly posting spending apportionments. He asserted that the decision violates federal law and undermines transparency. (WAPO.)
Emergency Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Noem v. Abrego Garcia: Government filed application on April 7 to vacate the injunction entered by the district court. Garcia filed response to application on April 7. Chief Justice Roberts stayed district court order on April 7. Government filed reply today.
Trump v. Washington: Government filed application on March 13 to stay district court injunction. Plaintiffs filed response to application on April 4. Government filed reply on April 7.
Trump v. New Jersey: Government filed application on March 13 to stay district court injunction. Plaintiffs filed response to application on April 4. Government filed reply on April 7.
Trump v. CASA: Government filed application on March 13 to stay district court injunction. Plaintiffs filed response to application on April 4. Government filed reply on April 7.