In a late-night decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary pause on the deportation of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliation under a rarely used wartime statute.
The court made the rulings in response to urgent filings from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that warned of imminent removals without judicial review.
The unsigned order, issued early Saturday morning around 12:55 a.m. ET, instructs the Trump administration to stop deporting Venezuelan detainees “until further order of this court.” The emergency halt comes amid concerns that the administration is bypassing constitutional due process protections in an effort to quickly expel suspected members of Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization originating in Venezuelan prisons.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision. The court has invited the administration to respond after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals weighs in.
Deportations Based on 1798 Law Raise Alarm
The administration had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — legislation historically employed only during wartime — to justify the mass removal of Venezuelans held in U.S. immigration custody, many of them in Texas. Legal experts have noted that this law was last prominently used during World War II to detain Japanese, German, and Italian nationals.
According to filings, some of the detainees had already been placed on buses and handed official notices classifying them as “Alien Enemies” — designations that the ACLU contends were made without the opportunity to contest the claims in court, a right recently reaffirmed by the justices.
“You have been determined to be an Alien Enemy subject to apprehension, restraint and removal,” read one of the forms submitted to the court, with the recipient’s name redacted.
The ACLU said many migrants refused to sign these notices and had no legal recourse before facing deportation.
Potential Constitutional Crisis Brewing
Legal observers say the case could ignite a full-blown constitutional clash between the executive and judicial branches. District Judge James Boasberg, who previously warned the administration against circumventing court orders, expressed concern that he had no power to block the removals after an earlier Supreme Court decision allowed the law’s limited use.
Judge Boasberg previously faced criticism from President Donald Trump, who publicly called for his impeachment — a rare instance that drew a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, signaling tensions between the branches of government.
During Friday proceedings, a government attorney claimed he was unaware of same-day deportation plans but acknowledged they could begin as early as Saturday.
Trump, when asked about the migrants, said he was unfamiliar with the specific case but supported removing “bad people,” adding, “That’s why I was elected. A judge wasn’t elected.”
ACLU Pushes Back
The ACLU scrambled to stop the deportations through filings with multiple federal courts, including in Texas and the Fifth Circuit, but turned to the Supreme Court late Friday after receiving no immediate relief. The advocacy group has argued that many of the migrants — some of whom were already deported to El Salvador on March 15 — were not gang members and never had the chance to contest the government’s allegations.
“The government is attempting to use an archaic law to bypass due process,” said an ACLU spokesperson. “These individuals have the right to defend themselves before being forcibly removed to countries where they may face persecution or torture.”
Despite assertions from Homeland Security officials that they are complying with Supreme Court directives, critics say the administration has failed to show clear evidence linking the detainees to gang activity.
The case now heads back to the Fifth Circuit for further review as legal experts watch closely for broader implications on immigration law and executive power.
