Decision Allows Deportations to Resume with Due Process Safeguards

In a closely watched 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld President Donald Trump’s authority to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged gang members, overturning a lower court’s block on the administration’s immigration enforcement strategy. The ruling, issued late on April 7, 2025, clears the way for the Trump administration to resume rapid deportations of Venezuelan migrants suspected of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, though with a key caveat: deportees must be granted notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal through judicial review.

The case stemmed from Trump’s March 15 executive order invoking the rarely used wartime law, which allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation during times of war or invasion. The administration argued that the presence of Tren de Aragua members in the U.S. constituted a “predatory incursion,” justifying the use of the 227-year-old statute. Within days of the proclamation, over 130 Venezuelan migrants were deported to a high-security prison in El Salvador, sparking legal challenges from immigrant rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had previously issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deportations, ruling that the Alien Enemies Act did not apply absent a formal declaration of war or clear evidence of an invasion. The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion vacated Boasberg’s order, finding that challenges to deportations under the act must be filed in the federal judicial district where detainees are held—likely Texas—rather than Washington, D.C. However, the Court unanimously agreed that detainees are entitled to due process, requiring the government to provide “reasonable time” for habeas corpus petitions before removal.

The decision drew sharp reactions from both sides. President Trump hailed it as a victory for border security, posting on Truth Social, “A great day for justice in America!” Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed the sentiment, calling it a “landmark victory for the rule of law” and criticizing Boasberg as an “activist judge.” Meanwhile, the ACLU’s Lee Gelernt, who represented the plaintiffs, framed the due process requirement as a significant win, stating, “The Court rejected the government’s extreme position that it could deport people without any notice or chance to fight back.”

Dissenting justices, including the Court’s three liberals and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, warned that the majority’s ruling could open the door to unchecked executive power. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision was “confusing and dangerous,” questioning whether habeas claims alone could adequately protect migrants’ rights.

The ruling does not resolve the broader question of whether Trump’s interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act is lawful, leaving that issue for lower courts to decide. For now, it marks a pivotal moment in the administration’s aggressive immigration agenda, with implications for hundreds of detainees awaiting deportation proceedings. As litigation continues, the fate of those already deported to El Salvador remains uncertain, casting a spotlight on the human stakes of this legal battle.