On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that prevented the removal of individuals suspected of being part of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to El Salvador without legal proceedings as stipulated by the Alien Enemies Act.
In a closely split decision of 5-4, the ruling allows the Trump administration to potentially restart deportations under this seldom-invoked wartime legislation, provided that detainees are afforded due process.
Detainees are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to contest their detentions through a habeas corpus petition and must have the chance to dispute the legal applicability of the act.
This rapidly evolving case raises questions regarding Trump’s bold and unprecedented application of presidential authority in utilizing the 18th-century law, which has historically been activated only during wartime.
The ruling leaves many legal uncertainties regarding the novel application of the Alien Enemies Act unresolved, including whether the Trump administration can even apply it to gang members.
“Individuals designated under the AEA must receive notification after this order indicating they are subject to removal under the Act. This notification should be provided within a reasonable timeframe and in a manner that allows them to seek habeas relief in the appropriate venue before any removal takes place,” stated the court in its unsigned majority opinion.
Stay updated with live politics coverage here
This decision overturns orders from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, who had blocked the deportations on March 15, while legal challenges remain ongoing. The original lawsuit, filed by five Venezuelans, received provisional class-action status from Boasberg for all Venezuelans in U.S. custody who are not American citizens.
The majority included five conservative justices, with three liberals dissenting, joined in part by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
“The conduct of the Government in this case represents an extraordinary threat to the rule of law,” wrote liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissenting opinion. “As a nation and a court of law, we ought to hold ourselves to higher standards,” she added.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted the unprecedented nature of the ruling occurring before Boasberg had conducted a preliminary injunction hearing. She expressed concerns about the increasing tendency of the court to issue significant rulings through the emergency “shadow docket” without comprehensive briefings and oral arguments.
“With an increasing number of our most critical rulings arising from the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s court is leaving less and less behind. However, to be clear: Our current stance mirrors past wrongs, resulting in similarly severe consequences. It simply appears we are less willing to confront it now,” she stated.
“In previous instances, when the court deviated from established norms, it at least left a record for future generations to analyze how it faltered,” she noted, referencing the infamous ruling permitting government confinement of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Prior to this announcement, the government suggested in court that it would initiate deportations immediately upon the lifting of Boasberg’s order.
Both sides are claiming a degree of victory.
“A wayward judge in Washington, DC cannot encroach upon President Trump’s authority over foreign policy and the safety of the American public,” declared Attorney General Pam Bondi on X.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem hailed the ruling as a “victory for sensible security” in a post on X.
Lee Gelernt, the ACLU’s lead attorney representing the plaintiffs against deportation, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision overall, stating, “While we are disheartened that we must restart the court process in a different venue, the key takeaway is that the court dismissed the government’s claim that it need not provide individuals with timely notice to contest their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. This is indeed a significant win.”
In February, the Trump administration declared Tren de Aragua a terrorist organization, alleging that its members had infiltrated the U.S. The administration contends that the group effectively acts as a branch of the Venezuelan government, led by President Nicolás Maduro.
Trump’s administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which is applicable only during situations of “invasive predatory incursions.”
By asserting these findings, the Trump administration deemed that members of Tren de Aragua could be detained and deported immediately, bypassing judicial review to determine the act’s applicability or the individuals’ affiliation with the gang.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the government’s criterion for identifying gang members is fundamentally flawed, relying on aspects like tattoos, which can lead to misidentification of non-gang members.
The administration maintains that the Alien Enemies Act grants the president near-unrestricted authority to expel designated immigrants at short notice, despite the constitutional protections of due process.
The Venezuelan plaintiffs asserted in their filing that the implications of the government’s stance were “overwhelming,” as it could enable officials to target undesirable immigrant groups arbitrarily.
Boasberg’s ruling did not mandate the release of any currently detained immigrants nor did it obstruct deportations under alternative legal frameworks. In fact, the Trump administration continues to deport other immigrants to El Salvador.
Boasberg’s ruling provoked a wave of criticism from Trump and his supporters, with calls from Trump and others for Boasberg’s impeachment, which elicited a prompt response from Chief Justice John Roberts.
On March 26, a federal appeals court voted 2-1 to reject a previous request to suspend Boasberg’s ruling.
Concerns were also raised regarding whether the government violated a verbal order from Boasberg that required planes transporting suspected gang members to return to the U.S.; subsequent flights landed in Honduras and El Salvador.
Until Trump’s declaration, the Alien Enemies Act had only been employed during three major conflicts: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
