Patience runs thin as Trump’s battle with Supreme Court intensifies 

Patience is running thin in the intensifying battle between the Supreme Court and President Trump, with the president’s allies heightening their criticisms as the justices burn midnight oil. 

Just before 1 a.m. Saturday, the high court temporarily blocked the administration from deporting a group of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act. 

Trump’s supporters responded to the ruling with fury, with some calling for the administration to ignore the emergency decision.  

Paul Ingrassia, the White House liaison to the Department of Homeland Security, wrote on the social platform X that generations of judges “have been infected with parasitical ideology.” 

 “The judges in law courts today, including the majority in the nation’s Highest Court, telegraph with these decisions that they have no understanding of law and its proper function and role,” wrote Ingrassia. 

Within the court, the order reflected a remarkable intervention. 

The court handed down its decision at a later hour than any other emergency application this term. It came during a holiday weekend, less than eight hours after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed its request and without waiting for the government to respond.

Also, the ruling broke with normal practice as the court did not wait for conservative Justice Samuel Alito to finish drafting his written explanation of his dissent. 

Court watchers view the lightning speed as an implicit rebuke of the Trump administration that suggested the justices did not think the administration would hold off on deportations.

At a lower court hearing nearly two hours after the ACLU filed its request at the Supreme Court, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign said the Department of Homeland Security was not aware of plans for any deportation flights Friday or Saturday.

But Ensign also added a caveat. 

“I have also been told to say that they reserve the right to remove people tomorrow,” Ensign said. 

At 12:56 a.m. in Washington, D.C., four minutes before the clock struck midnight in Texas, where the migrants are detained, the Supreme Court stopped the administration in its tracks. 

“The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,” the court wrote in its one-page order. 

Ed Whelan, a conservative legal scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote on X that the “only explanation” he could see was that the high court “does not trust the Trump administration to abide by its promise to the district court.” 

“And given how unworthy of trust the Trump administration has proven to be, that’s an ample explanation,” Whelan continued. 

Two justices publicly dissented: Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito, two of the court’s leading conservatives. 

Stunningly, the court refused to wait for Alito to finish his written statement, only briefly noting, “Statement from Justice Alito to follow.” Any written dissents are typically published alongside the majority’s order, but Alito’s did not come until nearly 24 hours later. 

“I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate,” Alito wrote, calling it “unprecedented and legally questionable relief.” 

The ACLU had acknowledged the court may need more time, so it called for an “administrative stay,” which briefly preserves the status quo until the justices can decide what to do. 

Typically, such a request is handled by the Supreme Court justice who is assigned by default to handle emergency matters from that lower court, known as the circuit justice. The case arose from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning Alito received the request. 

But as the hours ticked by later into the night, he did not issue an administrative stay. Instead, it came from the full court, a highly unusual move. 

A justice doesn’t have to publicly disclose if they dissented from an emergency order, meaning it is technically possible that up to two additional justices dissented in stealth.  But the apparent 7-2 split, with the three Trump appointees all in the majority against the administration, has led the online right to step up their attacks.  

“Ignore the Supreme Court. Arrest anyone who tries to enforce this. Dissolve the Supreme Court entirely if they push. You can deport foreigners or you don’t have a country anymore. There are no good choices now,” conservative talk radio show host Jesse Kelly wrote on X. 

Mike Davis, a fire-brand conservative lawyer and Trump ally, wrote that he hoped the justices “get their heads out of their asses.” 

“This is shameful lawlessness and cowardice from the conservative justices,” wrote Davis, a former law clerk to Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointee. 

Trump himself has declined so far to lash out at the Supreme Court in the way he has done so for federal district judges who rule against him, which have included impeachment calls and accusations they are a “Democrat activist.” When asked about the high court, however, Trump has been more muted, repeatedly saying he holds “great respect” for the justices.

But the battle isn’t over yet, as the Supreme Court still weighs how to move forward in the deportation flights dispute.

And beyond the current case, there is no end in sight to the clash between the justices and Trump’s agenda. Since taking office, the Trump administration has already filed 10 emergency applications. 

“John Roberts is ill equipped to keep the Court away from an actual constitutional crisis,” Josh Blackman, a conservative legal scholar and constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, wrote in a blog post for “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“At this point, he is squirming in a pit of quick sand,” Blackman continued. “The more he flails his arms, the quicker he will sink. Anyone who reaches out to the Chief will descend just the same.”