The idea of a nationwide injunction was not originally envisioned. It’s newish. Only Supreme Court in a court-sense can check the Executive. Congress can also check the Executive.
Non-citizens in removal proceedings get civil hearings, with fewer procedural protection. Expedited removal allows certain undocumented immigrants to be deported without ever seeing a judge, unless they claim asylum or prove long-term presence.
Courts have upheld that due process is contextual. It is not “one-size-fits-all” So yes, undocumented immigrants have a constitutional floor of protections but not the same ceiling as citizens or green card holders
If you get deported before you even have a chance to prove your citizenship, then it's a distinction without a difference. Be sure to carry your papers with you at all times!
If someone is deported before they can prove their citizenship, then due process hasn’t worked, and that’s a serious failure
The distinction I was trying to make isn’t that undocumented people have no rights and it’s just that the process they’re entitled to is different in scope
There are safeguards that could be added such as access to interpreters, better identity verification, etc
But the answer can’t be local injunctions which is what this entire SCOTUS decision was about
Congress could budget and pass a law to fix things. It’s not up to the Executive and Legislative Branch.
> Congress could budget and pass a law to fix things. It’s not up to the Executive and Legislative Branch.
The executive swears to uphold the constitution. Not write EOs that clearly violate it, then strategically drop appeals when they lose, so as to undermine the constitution for everyone without the means to dispute their case.
If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down. My point isn’t that the executive can act with impunity. It is that the judiciary must do so within its own constitutional limits.
If the executive is dropping appeals to avoid nationwide precedent, that’s a serious problem, but the long-term fix isn’t local injunctions
> If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down
Fortunately a thousand years of common law have figured out how to deal with this sort of thing, while those challenges are ongoing. It's called an injunction. It's issued when there's a strong case for an EO violating it, and is done when the violation, if allowed unabated, will cause irreparable harm to the the victims.
The legal process hinges on preventing irreparable harm while a case is being litigated. If it didn't, absolutely horrific things could be done to you under the color of law, and the people doing them would be incentivized to drag the cases out for as long as possible.
This is textbook, black-on-white, criminality from the executive.
The recent SCOTUS decision addresses the scope of those injunctions and focuses on whether a single district court can extend relief beyond the parties directly involved in a case. That’s pretty much it
Relief is still available through injunctive orders, class actions, appellate review, and coordinated litigation. These are all recognized parts of the legal system and remain available to address serious concerns
Illegal aliens have less due process by law.