Supreme Court Halts Trump’s Use of 1798 Law for Deportations

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to lift a temporary block on deportations of Venezuelan men accused of gang affiliations, halting the use of an obscure 18th-century wartime law that the administration invoked to justify swift removals.

In a 7–2 decision, the justices returned the case to a federal appeals court, extending a stay that had already paused deportations from a detention center in north Texas. The ruling comes amid a broader legal battle over the administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a statute historically reserved for wartime actions against nationals of enemy states.

The Trump administration had argued that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua—designated by the president as part of a “foreign terrorist invasion”—were eligible for expedited removal without due process. The case, however, centers on whether individuals must be given the opportunity to challenge deportation before being removed from the country.

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, criticized the majority for “overriding the executive’s constitutional authority in matters of national security.” The administration had requested that migrants be given as little as 12 hours to challenge their deportation, a timeline the Court firmly rejected.

“The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty,” the unsigned majority opinion stated. “Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process right to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”

The ruling follows revelations from a declassified U.S. intelligence memo undermining a key claim by the administration: that the Venezuelan government orchestrated the gang’s activity in the United States. Intelligence agencies reportedly found no credible evidence of such coordination.

Civil liberties advocates hailed the decision as a vital safeguard. “The court’s decision is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador,” said Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, which brought the case alongside its Texas affiliate.

Former President Donald Trump responded on social media, saying: “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” He falsely claimed the court had ruled that “murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane” cannot be deported without a “long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process.”

One deportation case highlighted by the Court involved Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident who was wrongly removed to a notorious El Salvadoran prison. Despite a Supreme Court directive ordering his return, the administration has refused, citing logistical challenges. The Court described this refusal as emblematic of the risks posed by removing individuals without due process.

The decision, while a temporary measure, signals judicial skepticism of executive overreach in immigration enforcement under historical statutes not designed for modern contexts. Still, the Court emphasized that its ruling does not preclude deportations through other legal avenues.

The ruling follows another contentious legal debate over Trump’s executive order attempting to revoke birthright citizenship—a move that also appears to face constitutional headwinds.

As multiple federal courts weigh the scope of presidential power under the Alien Enemies Act, the Supreme Court’s latest decision underscores a broader confrontation between executive authority and constitutional protections.