However vile a person’s crimes, he doesn’t lose the basic rights that belong to every human being. Government can lock him up if the law allows, but it can’t knowingly dump him in a place where he’s almost certain to be tortured, starved, or killed. That crosses the Eighth-Amendment line against cruel and unusual punishment, ignores the court’s authority, and shifts our problems onto another country instead of taking responsibility for them ourselves. A republic built on natural rights and the rule of law simply doesn’t get to outsource suffering.

> That crosses the Eighth-Amendment line against cruel and unusual punishment, ignores the court’s authority, and shifts our problems onto another country instead of taking responsibility for them ourselves.

The Supreme Court approved the deportation 7-2.

Edit: Nothing the Supreme Court does is strictly procedural. Unlike other courts, they have complete freedom to ignore precedent and procedure and rule (or refuse to hear the case) based on the outcome they desire, and they frequently do so.

The 7-2 order was about procedure, not substance. The Court said the district judge picked the wrong tool when he demanded 14 days’ notice—it did NOT rule that sending people to a war-torn state where they face torture is constitutional or consistent with our treaty obligations. Even the Founders distinguished between legal technicalities and natural-rights violations: an act can pass procedural muster and still be, in Madison’s words, ‘an abridgment of the rights of mankind.’ This deportation plan remains exactly that.

Response to your edit: Emergency shadow-docket orders don’t confer moral or constitutional absolution; they just postpone the real fight. By the founders’ own logic, knowingly dumping people into a war zone where torture is likely remains a breach of the natural-rights compact—no matter how many procedural shortcuts the government wins in the meantime.