art supreme court

Beyond the Headlines: What Trump v. J.G.G. and A.A.R.P. v. Trump Really Mean for America

/in /by

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

In the recent Supreme Court Opinions surrounding the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, the Supreme Court has sent a powerful and unified message—even amid its internal disagreements: the federal government is not above the Constitution or the rule of law. In both Trump v. J.G.G. and A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Justices, including those often seen on opposite ends of the judicial spectrum, made one thing clear—due process is not optional, even in matters of national security.

The differences between the Justices are real—but they are not rooted in the principle of whether due process must be upheld. Rather, the disagreement lies in the mechanisms and timing of enforcement. Justice Alito, though dissenting in the emergency stay issued in A.A.R.P., joined the majority in J.G.G., affirming that individuals facing deportation are entitled to meaningful notice and the ability to challenge their removal through habeas corpus. Despite their differences, the majority of the Court agreed on a foundational truth: the federal government must respect and submit to the rule of law.

Yet in the court of public opinion, a troubling argument continues to echo—“But what about the victims?” It’s the idea that certain individuals—because of their group identity, immigration status, or mere proximity to wrongdoing—can or should be denied due process simply because others who look like them or followed the same path have broken the law. This line of reasoning is not justice—it’s guilt by association.  That is not Liberty, that is Marxist-communism.

We’ve seen this rationale before—always cloaked in urgency, always ending in tragedy.

  • During World War II, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps without evidence of wrongdoing, without trial, and without basic legal protections—simply because others of their ancestry were deemed a threat.

  • In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Court infamously ruled that Black Americans had no legal standing, no right to due process—not because of their actions, but because of who they were.

In both cases, the government denied due process by deciding who was and wasn’t “deserving” of legal protection.

We are watching it happen again in our time. Many Americans arrested in connection with January 6, 2021, have been held without trial for extended periods, denied bail, subjected to pretrial punishment, and in some cases, prosecuted not for violence, but for association. Regardless of what one believes about that day, we must not overlook the rule of law simply because we dislike the accused. The same system that denies one man a fair trial today can deny you one tomorrow.

Denying rights based on the misconduct of others turns justice into a tool of power, not a protection of liberty. It grants government the dangerous authority to judge not by evidence, but by assumption. The Constitution was not designed to be convenient—it was designed to restrain government, even when it feels inconvenient.

This is not a question of partisanship. It is a question of principle. The Constitution is a contract that binds the government, and when due process becomes a privilege granted by the federal government instead of a right guaranteed to the people, Liberty is no longer secure for anyone.

It’s easy to defend the rights of those we agree with. But the real test of Liberty is whether we’ll defend the rule of law for those we fear or dislike. As one Socratic question reminds us: Can we really say we have Liberty if the government decides who does and doesn’t get due process?

The Court has spoken—not with one voice, but with one conviction: the rule of law stands above the rule of men. The American people must be just as resolute. Because if we wait to defend due process until it’s our turn to need it, it may already be gone.