MAY 16 – On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court extended a freeze on President Donald Trump’s attempt to deport Venezuelan migrants using a centuries-old wartime law. The ruling, delivered in a brief and unsigned opinion, upholds protections for dozens of migrants who were reportedly set to be removed without the opportunity to legally contest their deportation.
The legal battle focuses on the Trump administration’s reliance on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an old statute traditionally used during times of war, to carry out fast-track deportations of Venezuelan migrants. This move marks one of the most aggressive applications of presidential deportation powers since the law’s use during World War II.
The court’s decision came in response to an emergency request filed by attorneys representing the migrants, who claimed their clients were being removed without appropriate legal procedures. On April 19, the court issued a temporary block, and this Friday’s ruling continues that halt while lower courts further assess the legality of the administration’s actions.
Legal Process and Due Rights Ignored
According to the court’s statement, the removals lacked adequate legal notice and did not provide the migrants any meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportation. The justices noted that the administration had given less than 24 hours’ notice before attempting removals and failed to explain how the detainees could exercise their constitutional rights.
“Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the court emphasized.
President Trump, who returned to office in January, expressed sharp disapproval of the ruling. Posting on social media, he wrote, “This is a bad and dangerous day for America!” He went on to argue that the ruling obstructs the government from removing undocumented immigrants, including individuals he claims have committed crimes, without being bogged down in a lengthy and costly legal process. He further warned that the ruling could act as a magnet, encouraging others to enter the country illegally.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, both known for their conservative views, voiced their disagreement with the court’s decision. Justice Alito expressed doubts about the court’s authority to intervene at this early stage and questioned whether group-based legal relief for the migrants was permissible. Despite this, the majority of the court, which includes a 6-3 conservative lean, decided that the constitutional issues raised were serious enough to warrant a continued pause in deportations.
The Supreme Court instructed the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to evaluate what procedures are necessary to meet constitutional standards in this case. At the same time, the court made it clear that the administration is still permitted to carry out deportations under other valid provisions of U.S. immigration law, so long as proper legal processes are followed.
Limits on Power
The Trump administration has asserted that many of the migrants in question are affiliated with Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. Officials used this justification to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, arguing that the individuals posed a national security threat. The law allows the president to detain, restrict, or deport individuals suspected of loyalty to hostile foreign powers during wartime.
Migrants’ attorneys, along with several family members, have firmly rejected claims linking them to any criminal gangs. They claim that their relatives were targeted arbitrarily and were not afforded a fair chance to defend themselves against such serious allegations. Many of the detained individuals were reportedly held at the Bluebonnet immigration detention facility in Texas before being transferred for deportation.
Civil rights advocates argue that invoking a wartime law in peacetime raises grave constitutional concerns. One of the lead attorneys in the case described the decision as a “powerful rebuke” to the government’s approach, warning that such removals risked sending people into conditions resembling “a Gulag-type prison.”
The administration has reportedly arranged for the deported individuals to be held in El Salvador’s maximum-security anti-terrorism prison, under a financial arrangement with President Nayib Bukele’s government, which is receiving $6 million from the U.S. in exchange for cooperation.
This is not the first time Trump’s actions on Venezuelan migrants have faced judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court had previously ruled on April 7 that while the use of the Alien Enemies Act could be evaluated further, any deportations carried out under the statute must meet basic procedural fairness, including advance notice and the opportunity to contest removal.
Despite the temporary nature of this ruling, it carries weighty implications. In a separate legal case, the Trump administration argued that it could not bring back a Salvadoran man who had been mistakenly deported. This, the court noted, only underscored the risks of denying due process in deportation cases.