In a significant ruling on April 7, 2025, the United States Supreme Court narrowly approved the Trump administration's controversial move to deport Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The 5-4 decision clears the way for the continued removal of individuals suspected of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), recently designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
The Court overturned a lower court injunction that had temporarily blocked the deportations. However, the justices imposed critical limitations, emphasizing that detainees must receive timely notification of their rights to file habeas corpus claims. This ensures that individuals have a legal avenue to challenge their detention or deportation in court.
President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on March 15, 2025, invoking the Alien Enemies Act—a law historically used during times of war—to authorize the deportation of individuals affiliated with TdA. This marked one of the rare modern uses of the centuries-old statute, which allows the president to expel nationals of hostile countries during wartime. The administration argued that TdA poses a serious threat to national security.
Following the proclamation, the Trump administration swiftly deported 238 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador. Reports revealed that dozens of those deported had pending asylum cases in the United States. Human rights groups and legal experts criticized the methods used to identify suspected gang members, which included relying on tattoos, clothing, and other visual markers, warning of possible misidentifications and violations of due process.
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that any legal challenges must be filed in the districts where the detainees are held, transferring ongoing litigation to Texas, where most are currently in custody. Despite authorizing the deportations, the Court stressed the need for procedural safeguards.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, criticized the decision for granting "extraordinary relief" to the administration and warned against undermining the judicial process. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, also dissenting, voiced concern about the Court’s increasing tendency to rule on major constitutional issues without full hearings, drawing comparisons to dark moments in U.S. history such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
The ruling underscores a growing debate over the limits of presidential power and the role of federal courts in overseeing immigration enforcement. Both the Trump and former Biden administrations have argued against the broad use of nationwide injunctions by district courts, claiming they obstruct effective governance.
As deportations resume, legal and human rights groups are expected to closely monitor the administration's compliance with the Supreme Court’s due process requirements. The case highlights the delicate balance between national security interests and the protection of individual civil liberties in the evolving landscape of U.S. immigration law.