"Perhaps Alito's most egregious misrepresentation, however, was not legal, but factual: The justice wrote that Trump administration lawyers "informed" a federal judge that "no" deportations "were planned to occur" on Friday or Saturday, so there was no need for emergency action."
"That delay between the majority's order and the publication of the dissent gave Alito plenty of time to raise persuasive objections to the court's ruling."
Justice Samuel Alito's recent dissent from the Supreme Court reflects a rare and pressing intervention regarding the deportation of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. His claims that there were no planned deportations were quickly contradicted by credible information from the ACLU, indicating that authorities were, in fact, preparing for immediate deportations. This scenario showcases Alito's failure to accurately represent both factual and legal points, intensifying the importance of the court's decision to block the deportations. The dissent's timing also raises questions about procedural integrity and urgency within the judicial system.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]