Read it here.
On April the 18th of 75—that would be 1775—Paul Revere took a midnight ride. Around midnight on April the 18th of 2025, seven justices of the Supreme Court issued an order. The order was addressed to His Most High Excellency, and it declared, in words or substance, “Yo! Numbnuts! Don’t deport no more undocumented aliens without due process! And, by the way, we’re telling you this at midnight on Good Friday, after unusual and truncated legal procedure, because we don’t trust your fat ass any further than we can throw your fat ass. And that ain’t very far. Have a nice day. Love and kisses, The Supreme Court.”
Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, and promised a written opinion. Two days later the written opinion has appeared over the transom.
The First Question About the Dissent
Back on April 7, in Trump v. J.G.G., Justice Kavanagh wrote,
I agree with the Courts per curiam opinion. Importantly, as the Court stresses, the Court’s disagreement with the dissenters is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers—all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review of their transfers—all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review is available. The only question is where that judicial review should occur. That venue question turns on … [yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda].
But was Justice Kavanagh telling the truth about the actual views of “all nine Members of the Court”? After all, Justices Alito and Thomas are—how to put this?—often idiosyncratic in their views. And their stated dissent to the Midnight Ruling left open the possibility that they might have dissented because they agreed with the Trump Administration on its dictatorial interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act.
The Answer to the First Question
Well, who knows what Alito and Thomas might do or say at some future time. But, as of this afternoon, we do know what they did not say. Their dissent offers no scintilla of support for Trump’s basic claim, or for any hint that Justice Kavanagh might have misdescribed their views of due process and judicial review.
None. Zero. Not a smidgen. Not a soupçon. Bupkis. Rien. Nada.
The Second Question About the Dissent
The second question is: What are we to glean from the fact that the Alito/Thomas dissent goes on, and on, and on, about how the Supreme Court’s Midnight Ruling is inconsistent with a whole variety of arcane rules of civil procedure?
The Answer to the Second Question
The answer is that seven justices do not Trump’s fat ass any further than they can throw Trump’s fat ass.
And they bloody well want him to know that they don’t trust his fat ass.
And they want him to know that if he goes ahead and puts the next fifty Venzuelans on a plane for El Salvador, without notice and a hearing, then the long anticipated full blown constitutional crisis will be upon us.
The Third Question About the Dissent
Well, then, why did Alito dissent?
The Answer to the Third Question
Alito writes, “ 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.”
Translation? Not entirely clear, but one supposes that it wasn’t “appropriate” because it was in such tension with established procedural laws and precents—and it wasn’t “necessary” because, surely, Trump wasn’t going to play games and put those 50 guys on a plane before the Supreme Court could act.
Let me say that, if Justice Alito actually believes that Team Trump wasn’t trying to make a mockery of the Supreme Court, then I have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn that I am prepared to sell, at a very reasonable price.
The Dissent’s Addendum
The dissent ends thusly:
Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. ___ (2025) (per curiam), and the Court should follow established procedures.
And what, ladies and germs, is “our order in Trump v. J.G.G.”—the order that Justices Alito and Thomas so warmly embrace?
Why, it is, to quote the exact language of the Supreme Court decision, that detainees under the Alien Enemies Act “must receive notice … that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
Facing MAGA 