Supreme Court Rules Against Trump on Alien Enemies Act

The Supreme Court dealt a significant setback to the Trump administration’s deportation efforts on Friday, ruling 7-2 that Venezuelan nationals targeted for removal under the controversial Alien Enemies Act must be given adequate time and resources to challenge their deportations. The decision, which faulted the administration for giving detainees only 24 hours to launch legal challenges, clarifies but does not overturn the Court’s previous ruling that allowed the use of the rarely-invoked 18th-century wartime law under certain conditions, according to CNBC.

This latest development in the ongoing legal battle over the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has prompted an angry response from President Trump, who wrote on social media that “The Supreme Court WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”

Trending Headlines You Might Have Missed:

Due Process Requirements

In its unsigned decision, the Supreme Court criticized the administration’s approach to deportations under the Act, stating: “Under these circumstances, 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 ruling reinforces and clarifies the Court’s April 7 decision that first established the requirement for due process in such cases.

Friday’s decision temporarily halts deportations of Venezuelan nationals detained in northern Texas who the administration claims are members of the Tren de Aragua gang. According to NBC News, the Court emphasized that it was not ruling on the broader question of whether the Alien Enemies Act was being properly applied, but rather addressing the immediate procedural concerns about adequate notice and opportunity to contest deportation orders.

Administration’s Deportation Program

The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March, declaring the presence of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang in the United States an “invasion” that justified using the wartime powers granted by the 1798 law. The administration initially deported more than 130 Venezuelans under this authority, sending them to a prison in El Salvador rather than to Venezuela, a move that sparked immediate legal challenges.

Critics have questioned the legitimacy of using a law designed for wartime application during peacetime, with U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a Trump appointee, recently ruling in a related case that the administration had “exceeded the scope of the statute.” Defense lawyers and Democratic lawmakers have also pressed the administration to demonstrate how it knows the Venezuelans are members of the gang, raising concerns about potential misidentification.

Legal Battle Evolution

The case has generated a complex series of legal maneuvers across multiple courts, with the American Civil Liberties Union leading efforts to block deportations. In mid-April, the Supreme Court issued an unusual early morning order temporarily halting removals of Venezuelans from the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas after reports emerged that detainees were being loaded onto buses headed for airports.

This legal battle escalated when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found probable cause that the administration had committed criminal contempt by disobeying his ruling to halt deportations. However, the Supreme Court subsequently determined that only judges in jurisdictions where migrants are being held have the authority to pause deportations, leading to a patchwork of legal challenges across different federal courts.

Political Implications

President Trump responded forcefully to Friday’s ruling, using his Truth Social platform to condemn the decision. Beyond his comment about criminals remaining in the country, Trump claimed in a subsequent post that the Court’s decision “will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public.”

Immigration enforcement has been a centerpiece of Trump’s second term, with the president issuing executive orders declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, deploying troops, and implementing policies to restrict asylum access. These aggressive enforcement measures have generated both political support from his base and fierce opposition from civil liberties organizations and immigrant advocacy groups.