In a significant legal decision, the Supreme Court has halted the Trump administration’s ambition to fast-track the deportation of Venezuelans under an old wartime statute from the 18th century. This decision came after an emergency appeal from legal representatives defending Venezuelan individuals. The Trump administration has attempted to classify these individuals as gang members, which they argue allows for swift deportation under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
The justices voted 7-2 to indefinitely stop deportations from a detention center in north Texas using this antiquated law. The case has now been remanded to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which earlier this year opted not to interfere. President Trump voiced his dismay on his social media platform, Truth Social, by exclaiming that the Supreme Court was obstructing efforts to expel criminals from the U.S.
This ruling is part of a series of legal challenges the Trump administration has faced in its attempts to expedite the removal of undocumented immigrants. The administration has criticized the necessity of affording due process to individuals they claim have violated U.S. immigration regulations. Last month, the justices also issued a temporary stay on these deportations, commenting that authorities seemed ready to execute removals without delay.
Currently, several legal proceedings are focusing on the deportation directives linked to the 1798 law. President Trump had previously deemed the Tren de Aragua gang a foreign terrorist group, invoking the statute to deport alleged members. The pivotal issue here is whether individuals are afforded a fair chance to fight against their removal from the U.S., without reaching a conclusion on the suitability of Trump’s law invocation.
The Supreme Court articulated the importance of balancing national security with constitutional adherence, in an unsigned statement. Some federal judges have criticized the application of the Alien Enemies Act to quicken the deportation process of alleged gang members. Nonetheless, in Pennsylvania, a judicial figure approved its application.
The procedure for these deportations is not uniform, due primarily to an earlier Supreme Court decision that required individuals to challenge deportations where they are detained. In April, the justices ruled that a “reasonable time” must be allowed for detainees to file challenges, critiquing the adequacy of a brief 24-hour period. While the administration proposed that 12 hours should suffice, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines ruled for a 21-day timeframe, although she concurred that deportations under the law could proceed if challenged appropriately.
Importantly, the Supreme Court’s decision does not obstruct other lawful deportation methods by the administration. A dissent was voiced by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, expressing concern that the court had diverged from its typical procedures by taking such actions without exhaustive appeals court deliberation. Justice Alito underscored the unprecedented nature of the order. In concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated, although he agreed with the dissent, he would have preferred the Supreme Court to issue a conclusive verdict presently instead of redirecting the case to a lower court, asserting the necessity for an expedited, definitive resolution.