A divided Supreme Court on Friday upheld a block on the Trump administration’s controversial use of a rarely invoked wartime power aimed at deporting migrants in Northern Texas. The justices concluded that the administration did not provide adequate time for those targeted for removal last month to mount a legal challenge against their deportations. The majority opinion emphasized the “particularly weighty” interests of the detainees, particularly due to the risk of their removal to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador, where they could face indefinite detention.
President Donald Trump’s utilization of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target alleged members of a Venezuelan gang has sparked significant controversy. This approach is a focal point in the increasingly tense standoffs between the Trump administration and the courts regarding mass deportation efforts. Earlier in April, the justices instructed the administration to provide targeted detainees with sufficient notice “within a reasonable time and in such a manner” that would allow them to challenge their removal in the jurisdictions where they are being held.
In a dramatic turn, the Supreme Court intervened a week later, issuing an extraordinary late-night order to temporarily halt the deportations of a group of migrants in Northern Texas. Lawyers representing these migrants reported that they were already loaded onto buses and faced imminent removal to El Salvador.
In their ruling on Friday, the justices reinforced the critical importance of ensuring fair or due process before deportation. The court specifically referenced the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man who was wrongly deported and is now imprisoned in El Salvador, despite a 2019 court order prohibiting such actions. The unsigned order from the majority of justices stated, “A detainee must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief.” The 24 hours notice provided to the detainees in Northern Texas “devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the order emphasized.
Notably, Conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented in this case, indicating a split in judicial opinion regarding the administration’s deportation practices.
The Supreme Court clarified that it was not addressing the broader legal question of whether Trump officials can lawfully invoke the wartime statute to target alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Instead, the case has been referred back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit for further proceedings. The justices acknowledged the significance of the government’s national security interests while emphasizing that these interests must align with constitutional mandates.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a concurring statement, noted that the Supreme Court’s injunction aims to ensure that the judiciary can determine whether these Venezuelan detainees may be lawfully removed under the Alien Enemies Act prior to any actual deportation. Kavanaugh expressed a desire for the Supreme Court to address the underlying legal questions more comprehensively, calling for a “prompt and final resolution” to this matter.
Lower courts have predominantly rejected the Trump administration’s rationale for fast-track deportations. Judges in states such as Colorado, New York, and Texas have ruled that it was unlawful for Trump to invoke the Alien Enemies Act based on claims that the United States was being invaded by the Venezuelan gang. These courts have either barred or temporarily paused deportations in their respective districts.
While a federal judge in Pennsylvania permitted the administration to use the wartime law, the judge criticized the government’s process for executing those removals as “constitutionally deficient.” This judge mandated that targeted migrants receive at least 21 days’ notice and an opportunity to contest their removals.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing some of the targeted migrants, informed the justices that the Trump administration’s notice of deportation failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s order from April 7. The notice was written in English, not Spanish, and provided the detainees with only 24 hours to appeal their deportations. The ACLU urged the court to mandate at least 30 days' notice and to offer clear guidance to lower courts on managing these cases.
Recent court filings from April 23 indicated that the government was only providing migrants with 12 hours to express their desire to challenge their deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. This limited timeframe was deemed insufficient by their attorneys, who argued that it fell short of the meaningful opportunity for legal recourse outlined by the Supreme Court.
