SCOTUS Longhouse Faction Loses Fight To Overrun America With Crime

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has upheld former President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, a controversial move aimed at curbing illegal immigration and bolstering national security. The 6-3 ruling, delivered on April 8, 2025, affirmed the executive branch’s broad authority to regulate border security under the 1798 statute, which allows the president to detain and deport non-citizens deemed a threat during times of war or national emergency. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that the Act’s historical precedent and clear language granted Trump the discretion to target criminal elements crossing the southern border, particularly those affiliated with violent gangs and terrorist organizations.

However, the decision faced fierce dissent from the Court’s liberal wing, derisively dubbed the “Longhouse faction” by conservative critics—a reference to their perceived preference for collectivist, matriarchal governance over traditional American sovereignty. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that Trump’s application of the Alien Enemies Act was an overreach, lacking sufficient evidence of an imminent “invasion” or wartime crisis to justify mass deportations. In a scathing dissent, Sotomayor accused the majority of enabling a “xenophobic power grab” that would disproportionately harm vulnerable migrant communities while ignoring the root causes of crime and unrest south of the border. She warned that the ruling could embolden future administrations to weaponize the Act against any group deemed undesirable, eroding civil liberties.

The ruling has ignited a firestorm of debate across the political spectrum, with supporters hailing it as a necessary defense against what they describe as an influx of “criminal terrorist gangs” from Central and South America, while opponents decry it as a step toward authoritarianism. Proponents point to rising border incidents involving drug cartels and human trafficking as justification, arguing that the Longhouse faction’s dissent reflects a naive idealism that prioritizes open borders over American safety. Critics, however, contend that the decision glosses over the complexities of migration and risks alienating allies in the region, potentially destabilizing diplomatic efforts to address transnational crime. As the nation grapples with this polarizing verdict, the SCOTUS ruling underscores the enduring tension between security and liberty in an era of heightened global migration.