Supreme Court Lets Trump Pursue Deportations Under 1798 Law/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The court emphasized due process requirements for those facing removal. The 5-4 decision enables the use of wartime-era powers, with judicial oversight.
Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Alien Enemies Deportations: Quick Looks
- Trump authorized deportations under 1798’s Alien Enemies Act
- Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of lifting a block
- Justices required judicial notice and access to habeas relief
- Detainees must be informed and allowed to challenge deportation
- Court did not decide if the law’s use was legal
- Justice Sotomayor led dissent, warning of due process risks
- Deportations target alleged members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang
- ACLU argued removals only legal in wartime or invasion
- Trump previously called for the judge’s impeachment
- Supreme Court has recently issued multiple rulings favoring Trump
Supreme Court Backs Trump to Pursue Deportations Under 1798 Law
Deep Look
Supreme Court Greenlights Trump-Era Deportations Under Wartime Law
In a 5–4 decision Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump the green light to proceed with deportations under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law typically reserved for wartime situations. While the court sided with the administration in lifting a lower court’s injunction, it imposed strict due process requirements for those facing removal.
The case centers on Trump’s March 15 order invoking the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang accused of violent crimes across Latin America and parts of the U.S. The law grants a president the authority to deport individuals deemed a national security threat if their primary allegiance is to a foreign power.
The administration has argued that Judge James Boasberg of Washington, D.C., overstepped his authority when he issued an order halting the deportations. The Supreme Court, while siding with Trump, emphasized that those affected must be notified of their removal status and given an opportunity to file habeas corpus claims in the appropriate jurisdiction—typically where the detainee is held.
“This ruling means we will need to start the court process over again in a different venue, but the critical point is that the Supreme Court said individuals must be given due process,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who represented the Venezuelan men challenging the deportations.
A Legal Tightrope: Use of the Alien Enemies Act
This marks the first modern attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act for immigration enforcement purposes. Previously, it was invoked during World War II to intern individuals of Japanese, German, and Italian descent. Trump’s move to use it against noncitizens, including asylum seekers, has drawn both legal scrutiny and political backlash.
The court’s ruling did not resolve whether Trump’s reliance on the law was legal, only that affected individuals must be able to challenge their removals in court.
The justices did, however, clarify that venue matters—the proper place for legal challenges is where the person is detained, not necessarily Washington, D.C., where the initial lawsuit was filed.
Sotomayor’s Dissent: “Life or Death Consequences”
“That requirement may have life or death consequences,” she wrote, warning that individuals may not even know where they are being held, or if they’re being transferred in secret before they can file legal challenges.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority but did not sign on to parts of the dissent, indicating a more complex divide among the justices than simple liberal-conservative lines.
Political Fallout and Executive Power Debate
Trump praised the ruling on social media, claiming it as a “victory for national security and the rule of law.” He also renewed his call to impeach Judge Boasberg, labeling him a “radical left lunatic” following the judge’s earlier block of deportation flights.
The Justice Department had defended its actions by stating the deportation flights had already left U.S. airspace before Boasberg’s written order was issued. Critics argue the administration acted in bad faith by ignoring his verbal ruling hours earlier.
This decision adds to a string of recent legal wins for Trump at the Supreme Court. Last week, the court also upheld his cuts to diversity and inclusion grants in education and temporarily blocked the return of a deported Salvadoran man mistakenly removed from the country.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.