1. Define the following court terms as used in the article:

• unsigned order
• majority opinion
• dissent
• concurring opinion
• certiorari

2. The first paragraph of a news article should answer the questions who, what, where and when. List the who, what, where and when of this news item. (NOTE: The remainder of a news article provides details on the why and/or how.)

3. What did the justices rule in the unsigned order?

4. What did the Supreme Court previously rule on April 19?

5. Which two justices dissented from the majority order on the use of the Alien Enemies Act?

6. a) What did Justice Kavanaugh note in a concurring opinion about what he would like the court to do?
b) Do you agree with Justice Kavanaugh? Explain your answer.

7. President Biden opened the borders and allowed (in some cases flew in on commercial airliners) close to 10 million illegal migrants (or more) into the U.S. How long do you think it would take the courts under the usual method of deportation (being granted a court hearing) to deport this number of people?

8. If a known gang member enters our country illegally, authorities have no legal right to deport them immediately. What do you think? Should known criminal gang members be granted a court hearing, or be immediately deported upon apprehension under the Alien Enemies Act? Explain your answer.

9. From a May 16 X post by Georgetown Law professor Jonathan Turley:

The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Trump Administration in blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. However, the Court only did so based on the lack of notice (24 hours) afforded by the Administration. It did not rule on the legality of the use of the [Alien Enemies Act].

The Court expressly stated: "To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18."

That still leaves much to be decided including what notice is required: "it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. We remand the case to the Fifth Circuit for that purpose."

Both the legality of using the act and the required notice remain undecided (beyond the fact that 24 hours is clearly not enough).

The court is pumping the brakes as a warning to the Administration that it must give these individuals and the courts more time to consider these issues.

And some reader responses to Mr. Turley:

• "Great job kicking the can until next time. The US isn’t a sovereign country if they must ignore tens of millions of unvetted foreigners streaming into the country illegally, but has no means to get them out. This isn’t hard. It is a pass by a [Supreme Court] unwilling to do their job."
• "It's patently ABSURD for the courts to protect foreign criminals and "give notice" to foreign nationals who entered the country without any kind of process or permission. They are just creating an expensive red tape quagmire on the taxpayers' dime. With a country 36 trillion in debt, you would think the courts would mind the expense! I think that it is time for Congress to reign in Judicial micromanagement of the Executive, especially when some justices apply double standards to various administrations."

What do you think? Do you agree with one, both or neither of the reader responses to Mr. Turley's post on X? Explain your answer.