Supreme Court Allows Trump to Use 1798 Wartime Law to Deport Alleged Venezuelan Gang Members
- Victor Nwoko
- 9 hours ago
- 3 min read
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that former President Donald Trump may continue using the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, though the ruling establishes limits on how such deportations must be handled. The Court determined that legal challenges to deportations under this law must be heard in Texas, where the migrants are being detained, and not in Washington, D.C.
The ruling overturned a temporary order from a Washington, D.C.-based judge that had blocked the deportations. The justices emphasized, however, that the migrants are entitled to judicial review and must be notified that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must allow enough time for detainees to seek habeas relief before being deported.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh clarified in a concurring opinion that the Court had not decided whether the administration’s use of the law was lawful, but only where challenges to it must be heard. “All nine members of the Court agree that judicial review is available,” he stated.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court’s liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor—in dissent. They expressed concern about the potential harm to individuals wrongly deported and questioned the administration’s conduct in implementing the policy.
Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act on March 15, authorizing the apprehension and deportation of Venezuelan citizens aged 14 and older suspected of being members of Tren de Aragua. The Act, enacted in 1798, gives the president authority during wartime or national emergency to detain or deport foreign nationals believed to pose a threat to national security.
The law has a controversial history. It was used during World War II to detain Japanese, German, and Italian immigrants. Its latest invocation has drawn legal challenges and public criticism.
In response to Trump’s order, a group of Venezuelan men detained by U.S. immigration authorities filed a lawsuit through the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing that the use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context exceeds presidential authority. They contended that the law applies only during formally declared wars or invasions, neither of which has occurred.
District Judge James Boasberg initially blocked the deportations and ordered that any flights carrying detainees be turned around. At the time of the order, two planes were already en route to El Salvador. The administration allowed the flights to proceed, transferring 238 Venezuelan men to El Salvador’s “Terrorism Confinement Center.” Boasberg later questioned whether government officials had defied his order and is examining whether they should be held in contempt.
Government lawyers argued that the planes had already left U.S. airspace by the time Boasberg issued his written order and thus were not bound by it. They dismissed the judge’s verbal order during a hearing earlier that day.
Some deportees were allegedly misidentified as gang members. For example, one Venezuelan man, a professional soccer player and youth coach, was detained because of a tattoo of a crown honoring Real Madrid, which authorities misinterpreted as a gang symbol. Lawyers and family members claim many deportees had no criminal records and were in the U.S. legally, with some awaiting court dates on asylum claims.
The administration has acknowledged in court filings that “many” of those deported had no criminal history. Nonetheless, Trump celebrated the ruling, declaring on social media that the Court had upheld the rule of law and empowered the president to secure the borders.
Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the decision as a “landmark victory,” asserting that a judge in Washington, D.C., lacked the authority to interfere with the president’s national security decisions.
The case has raised concerns about the unchecked use of executive power. During a hearing, Judge Patricia Millett criticized the administration’s actions, saying, “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here.”
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, condemned the ruling and warned of its implications. She questioned what would happen if the government later discovered it had wrongly deported someone, emphasizing that under the administration’s stance, even U.S. citizens could be detained and sent abroad without redress. “History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation’s system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise,” she wrote.
She further warned that the administration’s conduct poses an “extraordinary threat to the rule of law” and criticized the majority’s decision as “indefensible.” “We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she concluded.
Commentaires