Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Late last night SCOTUS directed Trump not to remove any aliens under Alien Enemies Act based on a "putative class" meaning there is NO certified class action yet. So much for norms! 1/

2/ What makes SCOTUS' decision even more "norm" breaking is that it acted before allowing 5th Cir. to act and 5th Cir. actually dismissed appeal & request as "premature" because it is "a court of review" and district court needs a chance to rule.

3/ Also key is what 5th Cir. said....this is about "named petitioners"--a class was never certified so why in the world is a court entering an order related to a non-existent plaintiff?

4/ Pivoting here to make a different point: I totally get SCOTUS's concern. It appears Trump Administration is allowing only meager process that is not what is "due," although what is "due" is flexible under circumstances & that is debatable. NOW don't @ me... re "due process"

5/ It really is appalling that we must provide "due process" to remove people who entered our country "illegally" and who ignored the "due" "process" we provided for entry. So my "heart" might not care they get 24 hours notice, but my "brain" recognizes rule of law issue.

6/ And that is what prompted SCOTUS to act too. I get that. BUT what is infuriating is that SCOTUS is all about norms to NOT stop the lower court's clearly unconstitutional conduct when it is against Trump.

7/7 SCOTUS is either for "norms" and prudent about allowing lower courts to sort things out that are politically charged or it isn't. By intervening here--especially given 5th Cir.'s opinion re "court of review"--SCOTUS is showing it too is a political creature.

8/ Also, FTR: I think this is actually another "punt" by Roberts to delay the removal until the lower courts can enter the stay that SCOTUS did & then SCOTUS will deny the application, as they did in several Trump cases, which resulted in Trump victories. HUGE difference here...

9/ In Trump Applications, lower courts had gone too far & on merits SCOTUS should have entered injunction for Trump, so the "punt" stay wasn't improper--SCOTUS should have even gone further. NOT HERE: Here SCOTUS entered STAY where there are no plaintiffs!!! Stay is improper.

10/ To simplify: This is a "putative" class action, which means a "wanna-be," but until class is certified there are only 2 Plaintiffs & Trump isn't removing them. Yet SCOTUS entered stay applying to entire nonexistent "class." That Stay is improper, unlike in Trump Application.

11/11 The irony here is that even Judge Boasberg said I'm troubled, but "I just can't do anything" . . . because he followed SCOTUS' decision. But now, SCOTUS ignores everything in granting stay, proving they are no longer about prudence but policy!