The Supreme Court allowed President Trump to enforce the Alien Enemies Act temporarily, enabling rapid deportations of alleged gang members, marking a significant victory for the administration. While litigation continues, the court mandated that deported individuals must be notified and given time to contest their removals. The decision saw dissent from three liberal justices, with concerns about its implications for the rule of law and the potential for expedited removals without adequate legal recourse. The Trump administration claims it targets Venezuelan gang members deemed a threat, despite ongoing scrutiny regarding the legal framework of these deportations.
CNN
—
On Monday, the Supreme Court permitted President Donald Trump to temporarily enforce the Alien Enemies Act, marking a crucial win for the White House that enables immigration officials to utilize expansive wartime powers for the swift deportation of suspected gang members.
The unsigned ruling concerning this prominent emergency appeal allows Trump to apply the 1798 law to expedite removals as legal challenges regarding the act’s application continue in lower courts. The court emphasized that deportees must be informed of their status under the act and be given the chance to appeal their deportation in the federal court where they are held.
The court’s three liberal justices opposed the decision, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett, part of the conservative segment of the court, issued a partial dissent.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump hailed the ruling, declaring in all-caps that it was “a great day for justice in America.”
”The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself,” he wrote.
Officials from the Trump administration, like Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, quickly commended the ruling, with Bondi calling it a “landmark victory for the rule of law.”
“An activist judge in Washington, DC does not have the jurisdiction to seize control of President Trump’s authority to conduct foreign policy and keep the American people safe,” the attorney general stated on social media.
“President Trump was proven RIGHT once again!” Noem added, declaring, “LEAVE NOW or we will arrest you, lock you up and deport you.”
Trump characterized his emergency appeal as a confrontation over judicial power, emphasizing the order from US District Judge James Boasberg that briefly halted the enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act against five Venezuelans who filed a lawsuit, along with a wider group potentially impacted. By granting the president’s request, the Supreme Court nullified Boasberg’s directives.
Importantly, the court noted in its unsigned ruling that officials must inform migrants targeted by Trump’s proclamation that they are being deported under the wartime authority, thus allowing them “reasonable time” to file habeas complaints, which are legal claims asserting unlawful detention by the government.
A primary concern for attorneys representing the migrants has been that the expedited deportations under the act leave them insufficient time to file such legal actions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal member, contended that the Trump administration’s actions in this case “pose an extraordinary threat to the rule of law.”
“That a majority of this court now rewards the government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible,” she expressed. “We, as a nation and a court of law, should be better than this.” Although Barrett did not provide a separate opinion, she endorsed a significant section of Sotomayor’s dissent that questioned if habeas claims should be the sole mechanism for individuals to contest their deportations under the act.
The court’s directive arrived just one day prior to Boasberg’s scheduled hearing on whether to indefinitely suspend Trump’s use of the wartime power for deportations. Additionally, the judge is contemplating whether there is “probable cause” to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for violating his orders by continuing deportation flights last month. Trump and other officials have consistently criticized Boasberg as overstepping his authority, which has drawn a rare admonition from Chief Justice John Roberts.
In her poignant dissent, Sotomayor remarked that the compliance issue before Boasberg “should be reason enough to doubt that the government appears before this court with clean hands.”
“That is all the more true because the government has consistently obstructed the District Court’s efforts to determine whether the government indeed disregarded its explicit order,” she added, further stating that the administration’s “conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law.”
In a separate dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority for deciding the case using the emergency docket without oral arguments or deeper review. Jackson referenced the 1944 Korematsu decision, where the Supreme Court notoriously permitted the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II.
“I regret that the court seems to have entered a new phase of procedural variability, and that it has done so in such a hasty, unjust, and, in my opinion, inappropriate manner,” Jackson asserted.
“At least when the Court erred in the past, it created a record so that future generations could understand its missteps,” she commented.
At the heart of the matter was Trump’s March 15 invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which grants a president substantial authority to target and expel undocumented immigrants during wartime or when facing an “invasion or predatory incursion.” Trump has claimed that the influx of alleged gang members from Venezuela represents an invasion.
Shortly after the law was invoked, officials filled three planes with over 200 Venezuelan nationals and transported them to El Salvador, where they are being detained in a maximum-security facility. The administration has since clarified that some individuals were deported under different legal authorities, not the 18th-century act.
The Trump administration asserted that the detainees were connected to the Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua.
However, questions have arisen regarding the criteria used for these determinations. The court was deliberating on the appeal despite reports that the administration mistakenly deported a Maryland father to El Salvador “due to an administrative error.” This deportation occurred under a different legal provision and not the Alien Enemies Act, but it highlighted the risks tied to expedited removals.
Earlier on Monday, the Supreme Court suspended a lower court ruling that mandated the government return Abrego Garcia to the US by midnight.
Boasberg’s directive preventing further removals did not stop the administration from deporting alleged gang members under different laws, nor did it prohibit the government from apprehending immigrants under the act. Nonetheless, Trump swiftly sought an appeal.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on March 26 that Boasberg’s rulings could be maintained while the legal dispute is resolved. The majority comprised one judge assigned by President George H.W. Bush and another appointed by President Barack Obama.
US Circuit Judge Karen Henderson noted that the term “invasion” was broadly interpreted by the nation’s founders as indicative of a military incursion.
“The phrase reverberates throughout the Constitution ratified by the people just nine years prior. And in every case, it is utilized in a military context,” she remarked.
This article has been updated with additional information.