President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation policy has hit a major legal wall after the Supreme Court ruled to uphold a block on his administration’s use of a centuries-old law not seen since World War II.
In a controversial move earlier this year, Trump relied on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — a law crafted when the US feared war with France — to deport over 200 individuals allegedly tied to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
But on Friday (May 16), the Supreme Court delivered a crushing blow to the strategy, denying a request to clear a legal barrier stopping further deportations.
A rare law used only during wartime
The Alien Enemies Act allows the president to detain or deport individuals from a nation considered hostile — but only if there’s a declared war or hostile incursion against the US.
Historically, it’s been used just three times: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
Trump invoked it to deport 238 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador in March, where they were jailed in the notoriously harsh CECOT mega-prison. Despite a federal judge ruling against the order, the deportation flight went ahead. It has since emerged that some of those deported had not committed the crimes they were accused of, leaving them trapped in brutal conditions abroad.
Supreme Court halts removals: “Does not pass muster”
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision keeps a temporary block in place, effectively preventing further deportations under the act for now.
In its ruling, per ABC News, the court slammed the administration’s rushed approach: “Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”
The decision marks the second time the court has sided against the Trump administration’s emergency deportation efforts. The case was brought forward by two unnamed Venezuelan migrants held in a Texas detention center. Trump had accused them — and others — of being members of Tren de Aragua, calling their presence an “invasion” linked to foreign terrorism, per Al Jazeera. But a recently declassified intelligence memo disputes that the gang is backed by the Venezuelan government.
Kavanaugh backs intervention, Thomas and Alito dissent
In a separate opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued the issue requires urgent and final resolution:
“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court.”
Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, suggesting the court should have waited for a lower court decision before intervening.
The majority, however, emphasized the urgency: the government had already begun to move migrants to an airport in preparation for deportation on April 18, before returning them. The justices warned this risked “irreparable harm” and could place individuals “beyond [the Court’s] reach” if deported prematurely.
Trump furious: “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”
Trump didn’t hold back in his response, posting a pair of angry statements on Truth Social.
“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he fumed.
In a follow-up post, he blasted the decision as a threat to national security:
“The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,” Trump wrote, claiming the ruling meant “the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane” couldn’t be removed without a drawn-out legal battle.
He warned the decision would trigger “a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person” and predicted “bedlam” as a result.
ACLU hails ruling as a human rights stand
In contrast, the ACLU called the court’s move a necessary defense of due process and human rights.
“The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
He added: “The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.”
