Fact check: What role did the courts play in deportation proceedings under each administration?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have played a significant role in shaping deportation proceedings under both the Trump and Biden administrations, though the available data focuses primarily on Trump-era cases.

Under the Trump Administration:

• The Supreme Court consistently supported the administration's aggressive deportation policies by granting emergency relief from lower court orders that would have restricted deportations ^[1]
• The Court allowed the Trump administration to deport immigrants to third countries - nations not specifically identified in their original removal orders - without providing meaningful opportunities for migrants to demonstrate potential harms they could face ^{[2] [3]}
• The Court's decisions enabled the use of expedited removal processes, which allow rapid deportation of undocumented immigrants without access to full hearings before immigration judges ^[4]
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in key cases, arguing that the Court's decisions "rewards lawlessness" and constitutes "flagrantly unlawful conduct" by ignoring potential violence against deportees ^[3]

Under the Biden Administration:

• Despite Biden's campaign pledge to pause deportations, his administration has expanded deportation efforts, with deportations surpassing Trump's 2019 record ^[5]
• The Supreme Court has continued to allow the Trump administration's policies to proceed, including terminating parole and work authorization for hundreds of thousands of people under programs like the CHNV parole program ^[6]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several critical gaps in understanding the full scope of judicial involvement in deportation proceedings:

• Limited data on Biden administration court cases: While deportations have increased under Biden ^[5], there is insufficient information about how courts have specifically ruled on Biden's deportation policies versus Trump's
• Lower court resistance not fully documented: The analyses mention district court orders that were later overturned by the Supreme Court ^{[1] [2]}, but don't provide comprehensive details about how lower federal courts have consistently ruled on deportation cases
• Due process implications: The analyses highlight concerns about expedited removal undermining due process rights for asylum seekers ^[4], but don't fully explore how different court levels have balanced national security concerns against constitutional protections
• Specific countries and bilateral agreements: While the analyses mention deportations to countries like Costa Rica, Panama, and Rwanda ^[7], they don't explain the legal frameworks or court challenges surrounding these specific arrangements

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual in seeking information about court roles across administrations. However, the question may inadvertently suggest that there are clear, distinct differences between how courts operated under each administration, when the evidence shows:

• Continuity in judicial approach: The Supreme Court has consistently favored executive branch deportation authority regardless of which party controls the White House ^{[1] [3] [6]}
• Policy implementation vs. judicial oversight: The analyses suggest that while Biden campaigned on reducing deportations, the actual judicial framework and court decisions have remained largely unchanged, with deportations actually increasing ^[5]
• Oversimplification of court hierarchy: The question doesn't distinguish between different court levels, when the evidence shows significant tension between district courts (which have attempted to limit deportations) and the Supreme Court (which has consistently overturned those limitations) ^{[1] [2]}

The question assumes equal documentation exists for both administrations, when the available analyses heavily focus on Trump-era Supreme Court cases, potentially creating an incomplete picture of judicial involvement under Biden.