Justices halt use of centuries-old wartime law, calling out rushed removals and broken legal safeguards.
In a major setback for Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court on May 16 temporarily blocked his administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, citing serious concerns over due process and the risk of irreversible harm.
The unsigned majority opinion—backed by a majority of justices and opposed only by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—emphasized that the migrants had received only 24 hours’ notice, often in a language they didn’t understand, with no clear instructions on how to contest their removal.
The ruling came after federal courts in Texas, Colorado, and New York issued injunctions against the administration’s unprecedented use of the centuries-old wartime law to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Lower courts had already begun to question the legality of Trump’s March invocation of the law, part of a broader campaign promise to fast-track deportations without typical judicial review.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a separate opinion, called for the Supreme Court to take up the full case immediately to resolve the underlying constitutional questions.
The majority, however, chose instead to send the case back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, urging expedited review. It also criticized U.S. District Judge James Hendrix, a Trump appointee, for delaying action for over 14 hours, effectively denying the migrants urgent relief.
The court’s skepticism of the administration’s arguments was particularly pointed: it referenced a case where a man was wrongly deported to El Salvador, and the government later admitted it could not bring him back—underscoring the “particularly weighty” stakes.
Legal experts like Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck called the decision “quietly significant,” noting that the Alien Enemies Act is now effectively paused nationwide until the courts determine its legality and the due process rights it must respect.
Trump, reacting angrily on Truth Social, wrote: “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.”
Meanwhile, ACLU attorneys representing the migrants argued that the administration’s tactics amounted to a shell game, rushing deportations before courts could intervene, and failing to notify migrants in a fair and lawful way.
The high court’s move marks a serious judicial check on Trump’s broad claims of executive power, and suggests mounting judicial unease with his attempts to bypass long-established legal protections—even in the name of national security.
