It’s normal for the high court to side with the government in these cases only for them to be overturned on appeal. That’s not my opinion, that’s the experience of immigration lawyers.
So yes, the policy is unlawful _in fact_ but the legal process needs to catch up to that.
They’re not ruling on legality, they’re refusing to grant injunctions on the flights.
This doesn’t mean they’re legal, it means the courts won’t stop those individuals from being deported while the legal case for the policy is being argued. The decision to grant, or not, an injunction is not in itself a judgement on the underlying policy. The court did the former, not the latter.
Do you expect the Supreme Court to rule on all government policy? Is it the case that you feel government policy is illegal until ruled legal by the SC? Sort of guilty until proven innocent? If the SC decides not to rule, say it just dismisses the case (not sure what the mechanisms are here) would the policy be perpetually illegal or would that be taken as tacit legality of the policy?
This does seem logically consistent to me, just trying to understand your position better.
So yes, the policy is unlawful _in fact_ but the legal process needs to catch up to that.