Supreme Court Enables Human Trafficking Under Guise of Due Process

A Chilling Procedural Maneuver

In a deeply disturbing decision, the Supreme Court has effectively handed the executive branch a guidebook for legally disappearing individuals to foreign slave labor camps. Masquerading as a defense of "due process," the Court's ruling dismantles genuine protections, reducing fundamental human rights violations to mere procedural technicalities easily overcome with minimal paperwork.

This ruling legitimizes the administration's ongoing efforts to establish a program trafficking people to El Salvadoran slave labor camps, a program previously challenged in lower courts for its blatant disregard for due process and basic human rights.

Empty Promises of Due Process

The Court’s decision in this challenge to the administration's horrific abuse of the Alien Enemies Act dissolves Judge Boasberg's injunction, offering the hollow consolation that individuals will have a "reasonable" amount of time to file habeas petitions before being deported. This theoretical protection is practically meaningless for most victims lacking the resources or legal representation to navigate complex federal court challenges within such limited timeframes.

In stark contrast, the Fourth Circuit upheld an order on the same day requiring the return of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador. Judge Stephanie Thacker eloquently stated, "The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process."

Even conservative Judge Wilkinson, while debating the court's authority to demand vs. "facilitate" Garcia’s return, acknowledged the government’s fundamental error. However, while this battle wages on – with Chief Justice Roberts putting the order on hold – the Supreme Court's broader stance is alarmingly clear.

A Troubling Distortion of Precedent

The Court's approach is deeply flawed. As habeas expert Lee Kovarsky highlights, the majority opinion deliberately misrepresents legal precedent, conflating standard detention cases with state-sponsored human trafficking to create the illusion that this egregious situation falls under normal habeas doctrine.

This intellectual dishonesty facilitates human rights abuses while providing the thinnest veneer of due process – a requirement for individual habeas petitions that the Court knows most victims are unable to file effectively.

The Dissent: A Voice of Reason

The Court’s four female justices offered a scathing dissent, exposing the majority's hypocrisy. Justice Sotomayor's dissent is particularly potent, highlighting the absurd contradiction of all nine justices agreeing that even alleged gang members deserve due process while the majority simultaneously dissolves an order protecting individuals from being trafficked with no due process whatsoever.

Justice Sotomayor writes, "Against the backdrop of the U. S. Government’s unprecedented deportation of dozens of immigrants to a foreign prison without due process, a majority of this Court sees fit to vacate the District Court’s order."

Abuse of the Shadow Docket

Adding to the concern, the majority’s decision utilizes the shadow docket – typically reserved for genuine emergencies and maintaining the status quo – to establish sweeping new legal precedent without appropriate briefing. This is not merely procedurally questionable, but dangerous. The Court fundamentally reshapes the government's power to traffic people to foreign slave labor camps without the careful deliberation and thorough legal arguments such a monumental shift demands.

Justice Jackson’s dissent aptly captures the severity of this abuse: “The President of the United States has invoked a centuries-old wartime statute to whisk people away to a notoriously brutal, foreign-run prison. For lovers of liberty, this should be quite concerning.”

A Legacy of Shame

History will undoubtedly judge this moment harshly. Facing an unprecedented executive power grab to send individuals to foreign slave labor camps, the Supreme Court's majority opted not to defend fundamental constitutional rights, but instead provided a how-to manual for legally sanctioned human trafficking. In doing so, they have failed not just the victims of this program, but their fundamental duty to protect basic human rights and liberty against government overreach.