Justice Samuel Alito's dissent in the Supreme Court's order blocking the deportation of Venezuelan migrants contained factual inaccuracies. Alito claimed the Trump administration informed a judge that no deportations were planned. This contradicts evidence suggesting the government was actively preparing deportations, with migrants loaded onto buses destined for an airport.
The Justice Department's attorney, Drew Ensign, provided ambiguous responses to the court regarding the planned deportations. His hedging and obfuscation, revealed in court transcripts, raised concerns about the government's intentions. Ensign's previous involvement in a similar case where deportation flights proceeded before court rulings further diminished the credibility of his statements.
The Supreme Court's late-night intervention suggests a loss of faith in the Trump administration's adherence to the law. The Court's decision to act before Alito completed his dissent and before the Justice Department responded to the ACLU indicates a lack of trust in the government's transparency.
The article concludes that Alito's dissent was actively misleading and highlights concerns about the Trump administration's actions. The Supreme Court's intervention underscores a growing distrust in the government's adherence to due process and its willingness to provide accurate information to the court.