The article analyzes Justices Alito and Thomas's dissent in a Supreme Court case concerning the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan immigrants. The core argument centers around the concept of "selective proceduralism," where the justices prioritize adherence to procedure over addressing the immediate human rights violations faced by the detainees.
Venezuelan immigrants, including Eduardo Daboin Rall, were slated for deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. A last-minute intervention by the Supreme Court prevented their removal to El Salvador, a move Alito and Thomas dissented against.
Alito and Thomas argued that the Court's midnight intervention disrupted established legal procedures. They claimed there was no urgency and the Executive branch should follow due process. The article counters this, stating the urgency was the risk of irreversible harm to the detainees, whose deportation would have been to a notorious Salvadoran detention center (CECOT).
The article argues Alito and Thomas's dissent reveals a prioritization of procedure over human rights, a form of selective proceduralism. This is further exemplified by the administration's failure to comply with previous court orders regarding the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States from CECOT.
The author argues that allowing the Trump administration to circumvent the court's orders due to slow procedural processes effectively nullifies constitutional rights.
The article concludes that selective proceduralism, while potentially unavoidable due to ideological differences, becomes especially problematic when it allows the violation of fundamental human rights and undermines the rule of law. The case reveals a concerning disregard for the immediate human costs of slow legal processes.