In a major blow to President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday halted his administration’s attempt to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members under a little-known wartime law from the 18th century.
The 7-2 decision temporarily blocked the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA)—a law not invoked in modern times since the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The ruling is a direct response to claims that the alleged members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang were not given sufficient time or information to legally challenge their deportation.
More: Trump Grabs Musk’s Hand and Drops Five-Word Bombshell in Saudi Meeting
More: Trump’s Sleepy Moment in Saudi Has People Saying Biden Would Be Roasted
“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 court said in an unsigned order.
Trump, furious with the decision, took to his platform Truth Social to vent, writing in all caps:
“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”
The legal battle centers on Trump’s use of the AEA to justify mass deportations of undocumented Venezuelan migrants—many of whom, according to their attorneys, had no criminal records and were falsely profiled based on their tattoos. In March, the Trump administration began deporting suspected gang members, claiming they were a “national security threat” engaged in “hostile actions.”
One of the deported individuals was reportedly sent to El Salvador “in error,” and the government has admitted it is “unable to provide for [his] return.”
While the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the AEA could be used to deport undocumented migrants, it made clear that basic constitutional rights must still apply—even in matters of national security.
“To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given,” the justices wrote. “We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution.”
Only two conservative justices—Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—dissented from the ruling, siding with the Trump administration.
Lower courts remain divided on the issue. While three federal judges have ruled that Trump’s use of the AEA for immigration enforcement is unconstitutional, one Trump-appointed judge upheld the policy. The Supreme Court has now ordered a lower court to “expeditiously” review the legality of using the AEA in this context.
More: George Clooney Stunned as Biden Doesn’t Recognize Him at Star-Studded Event
More: Joe Biden’s Health Bombshell Sparks Panic as Prostate Nodule and Wheelchair Talks Exposed
The high-profile case comes amid Trump’s continued crackdown on immigration. Since returning to office, he has sent troops to the southern border, designated criminal gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13 as terrorist organizations, and imposed economic pressure on neighboring countries for allegedly failing to curb illegal crossings.
Trump defended invoking the AEA by claiming that Tren de Aragua posed a serious threat to U.S. sovereignty, calling their presence “an invasion or predatory incursion.”
But with the Supreme Court now stepping in, Trump’s aggressive use of archaic laws to speed up deportations may be facing serious legal roadblocks.
You Might Also Like:
- “I Will Do Everything in My Power”: 7-Year-Old Dies of Sodium Poisoning After Parents Use Olive Brine as Punishment
- Trump Erupts After Court Blocks Gang Deportation Plan
- Nicole Kidman Shuts Down Dreams of TV Romance with Keith Urban
- Kash Patel delivers fiery warning after FBI disrupts mass shooting terror plot targeting military
- Reality Show for a Passport? Homeland Security’s Bold Plan Sparks Outrage