Trump Seeks Supreme Court OK for Migrant Deportations/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act. A lower court blocked the expulsions, questioning the legality and lack of due process for those targeted as gang members. The case is now a legal flashpoint in the administration’s aggressive immigration stance and use of wartime powers.
Trump Pushes Supreme Court to Reinstate Deportations of Venezuelans Under Alien Enemies Act Quick Looks
- Trump asks Supreme Court to overturn block on Venezuelan deportations
- Deportations are based on 1798 Alien Enemies Act, rarely used since WWII
- U.S. District Judge Boasberg previously halted removals, citing due process
- DOJ argues courts should not interfere in national security matters
- ACLU lawsuit challenges deportation of five migrants held in Texas
- High court gives ACLU until Tuesday to respond
- Administration labels Venezuelan gang a foreign invasion
- Boasberg accused Trump of defying court order to return deported migrants
- Chief Justice Roberts defends judiciary amid impeachment calls
- Wartime law allows removal of noncitizens without hearings
Trump Seeks Supreme Court OK for Migrant Deportations
Deep Look
The Trump administration on Friday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency permission to resume deportations of Venezuelan migrants, arguing that the president’s use of an 18th-century wartime law overrides current judicial restrictions.
The emergency filing follows a 2–1 decision by a federal appeals court in Washington that left in place a lower court’s temporary order halting the expulsions. The Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law rarely used since World War II, as legal justification for its actions.
At the heart of the case is a presidential proclamation that labels the Tren de Aragua — a Venezuelan gang — as a national security threat and a form of foreign invasion, allowing for expedited removals of hundreds of Venezuelan noncitizens detained across the country.
Legal and Diplomatic Tensions Escalate
In court documents, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote that lower court rulings interfered with sensitive diplomacy and the president’s constitutional authority to manage national security.
“The district court’s orders have rebuffed the President’s judgments on protecting the nation,” Harris stated, warning of harm to foreign negotiations if the deportations remain blocked.
The administration also argued that legal challenges should be heard in Texas, where the affected migrants are detained — not in Washington, D.C., where the current case is unfolding.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the original lawsuit just hours after the proclamation was made public, representing five Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas. The group contends the government violated their rights by denying them the chance to contest their alleged gang affiliations.
The Supreme Court has given the ACLU until Tuesday to file a response.
Judge Boasberg: Due Process Still Applies
The original order halting the deportations was issued by U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, chief judge of the federal court in Washington. He wrote that migrants targeted under the proclamation must have an opportunity to challenge their designations as alleged gang members.
“There is a strong public interest in preventing the mistaken deportation of people based on categories they have no right to challenge,” Boasberg wrote.
Despite his ruling, planes carrying deported migrants were not turned back, raising concerns that the administration defied court orders. Boasberg has said he will determine whether the government disobeyed his instructions. The Trump administration has refused to share details, citing state secrets privilege.
Political Fallout and Judicial Tensions
The case has become politically charged, with Trump and his allies calling for Boasberg’s impeachment over the ruling. In a rare public defense of the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts responded, saying impeachment “is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
The Alien Enemies Act gives the president sweeping authority to deport noncitizens from countries considered hostile, without requiring immigration or federal court hearings. Trump’s use of the law marks its first modern invocation, drawing comparisons to wartime-era policies and sparking legal debate over its application in peacetime immigration enforcement.
Trump’s legal team insists the administration acted within its authority under the law, while opponents say it undermines due process and sets a dangerous precedent.
With immigration once again a central issue in the political and legal landscape, the Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching implications — not only for Venezuelan migrants, but for the balance of power between the presidency and judiciary.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.