President Trump's ambitious immigration agenda is causing a dramatic shakeup at the Supreme Court, as the conservative justices split over Trump's deportations.
In a shocking rebuke of Trump, the court issued a ruling just after midnight Saturday that blocks him from using the Alien Enemies Act to remove suspected gang members detained in northern Texas.
Only two justices, neither of them appointed by Trump himself, voiced concern about the court's move. In a fiery dissent, Samuel Alito, joined by Clarence Thomas, said the court issued a hasty and premature ruling without clear jurisdiction.
"When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief, and we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming. This Court, however, refused to wait," Alito wrote.
Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport alleged gang members has led to a dramatic standoff between the judiciary and the executive branch.
The president's critics, including the federal judges blocking his moves, have accused him of ignoring court rulings and suspending due process, while Trump and his supporters say activist judges are trying to thwart Trump's electoral mandate to deport illegal aliens.
Prior to Saturday's midnight ruling, the Supreme Court had allowed Trump to continue using the Alien Enemies Act to carry out deportations but ordered the government to provide "reasonable time" to contest them.
The Supreme Court's midnight intervention came after the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union scrambled to file challenges in Texas, Louisiana, and Washington D.C. all in a matter of hours on Good Friday.
Alito's dissent noted that the Supreme Court did not wait to hear the Trump administration's side of the story, instead relying on "dubious" evidence that a group of Venezuelans being detained in Texas would be imminently deported.
"In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order," he wrote.
"I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order atm midnight was necessary or appropriate," he wrote.
Alito concluded, “Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law."
