May 16, 2025 — Washington, D.C.
In a significant ruling Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration’s attempt to use a centuries-old wartime law to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan nationals accused of gang affiliations. In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled that the administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) violated the constitutional rights of those targeted for removal.
The case centered on the planned deportation of individuals alleged to be members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Under the AEA, the administration sought to detain and deport the individuals with as little as 24 hours’ notice — a move the Court found to be in conflict with basic due process protections.
Writing for the majority, the justices emphasized that even in matters of national security, the government must afford individuals a fair opportunity to challenge their detention and removal. The Court ruled that the process lacked adequate notice and failed to provide meaningful information for detainees to mount a defense.
The decision does not completely shut down the use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law originally passed during John Adams’ presidency. Instead, the Court remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine what procedural safeguards — including timelines and access to legal counsel — are constitutionally required before someone can be deported under the statute.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court should not have intervened until lower courts had fully addressed the matter.
The ruling immediately affects dozens of Venezuelan migrants currently held in detention centers across northern Texas, whose deportations have now been halted pending further legal review.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which represented several of the detainees, praised the decision as a “victory for constitutional protections in the face of executive overreach.”
“This case makes clear that even under laws designed for wartime, the government cannot bypass the rights of individuals,” said an ACLU spokesperson. “Due process is not optional.”
The Court’s decision marks a significant moment in the legal debate over how historical emergency powers can be applied in modern immigration enforcement, and reinforces judicial checks on executive authority in times of perceived national threat.
