Migrants Get 12 Hours to Fight Deportation \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Migrants facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act are being given just 12 hours to contest removal, according to newly unsealed court documents. The ACLU calls the timeline unconstitutional and insufficient for due process. The Supreme Court previously ruled detainees must receive “reasonable” time to appeal.
Quick Looks
- Migrants given 12 hours to contest removal under Alien Enemies Act
- ACLU argues this violates due process and Supreme Court guidance
- ICE says migrants must declare intent within 12 hours, file within 24
- Deportees include Venezuelans linked to Tren de Aragua gang
- Deportations directed to El Salvador’s controversial CECOT prison
- Legal rights form only provided in English, not all details explained
- Previously sealed document made public by court order
- Government claims timeline meets “reasonable” standard under law
- Colorado judge ruled migrants must get at least 21 days notice
- Act has only been used three times in U.S. history
Deep Look
A newly unsealed court document has revealed that migrants detained under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act are being given as little as 12 hours to decide whether to fight their deportation—a timeline that has sparked legal challenges, civil rights outcry, and renewed questions about constitutional due process.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing several individuals affected by the policy, argues that the timeframe is not only insufficient, but it also violates a Supreme Court directive requiring that detainees under the Alien Enemies Act be granted a “reasonable” period to appeal their removal.
“This is a dramatic turn in these cases,” said Lee Gelernt, senior attorney for the ACLU. “Twelve hours is clearly insufficient to find legal counsel, understand your rights, and file a petition.”
The document in question, initially filed under seal by the federal government on grounds of law enforcement sensitivity, was ordered unsealed by a judge on Thursday, shedding light on the internal mechanics of a controversial process that has, until now, been mostly hidden from public view.
A Compressed Clock for Life-Altering Decisions
According to court filings, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials consider a detainee subject to removal if they fail to indicate their intent to challenge the deportation within 12 hours of being served a form. Migrants then have 24 hours total to submit legal filings in court—a window civil rights advocates say is unrealistic.
The form itself is only available in English, although ICE claims the contents are read aloud in a language understood by the detainee. While the form mentions the right to make a phone call, it does not explicitly state that detainees can contest their removal under the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798.
The Act, revived during the Trump administration, has only been used three times in U.S. history—most notably during World War II, when individuals suspected of Nazi affiliations were given 30 days to file appeals. Now, with the law being invoked again, the speed of modern deportation efforts is drawing harsh criticism.
Venezuelans Sent to Controversial Prisons
Among those targeted under the act are Venezuelan migrants accused of links to the Tren de Aragua criminal organization. These individuals are reportedly being deported not back to Venezuela, but instead to CECOT, a high-security prison in El Salvador known for harsh conditions and overcrowding.
The deportation practice and the use of foreign prisons add a layer of geopolitical and human rights complexity to an already controversial legal mechanism.
Legal Landscape: Conflicting Rulings, Ongoing Lawsuits
The legal fallout has already begun. In Colorado, a judge ruled this week that the federal government must provide at least 21 days’ notice to detainees under the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration has appealed, claiming the current 12-to-24-hour process provides adequate time for migrants to request habeas corpus relief and make one phone call.
In contrast, federal attorneys told a Washington, D.C. judge that migrants previously received 24-hour notice. The inconsistency in messaging has only added fuel to the litigation fire. Multiple new lawsuits are now surfacing across the country, challenging the speed and legality of these deportations.
An earlier version of the rights form—filed in federal court—explicitly stated that detainees could not petition a judge, a stipulation that was only removed after the Supreme Court intervened.
Due Process vs. National Security
The government contends that the shortened timeline balances national security interests with constitutional obligations, especially when dealing with suspected foreign agents or individuals tied to international criminal networks.
But legal experts and advocacy groups warn that rushing deportation decisions undermines the very principles the U.S. justice system is built upon.
“We are talking about decisions that change the course of a person’s life—possibly forever,” said Gelernt. “This isn’t how justice is supposed to work.”
The debate is shaping up to be a key legal battle in 2025, especially as the Trump administration continues to apply old wartime statutes to modern-day immigration enforcement. The next court rulings could redefine how quickly the U.S. government can act in deportation cases involving national security claims.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.