The U.S. Supreme Court has once again halted President Donald Trump’s controversial deportation plan that targeted Venezuelan migrants, marking a major legal setback for his immigration agenda. In a ruling released Friday, the court refused to lift the block on deportations carried out under a centuries-old wartime law, criticizing the administration for violating basic due process rights.
At the heart of the dispute is Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law originally intended for wartime actions, to justify the immediate removal of migrants. The administration had begun deporting Venezuelan nationals—allegedly tied to the criminal group Tren de Aragua—to El Salvador, where they were placed in high-security prisons under a U.S.-funded $6 million deal with the Bukele government.
But civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sounded the alarm when dozens of migrants were being taken to the airport without notice or any chance to defend themselves legally. They filed an emergency request, which the Supreme Court granted, saying the process was unfair and lacked transparency.
“Receiving a 24-hour removal notice with no clear way to challenge the decision simply does not meet constitutional standards,” the court ruled in a brief opinion.
President Trump reacted furiously on social media, calling the decision a “bad and dangerous day for America.” He argued that criminal migrants should not be entitled to lengthy and costly legal proceedings, claiming the ruling would only encourage more illegal immigration.
Two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented from the decision. Alito expressed doubts about the court’s authority to intervene and questioned the legality of granting group-wide relief to detainees.
The Supreme Court, however, directed the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to define what legal procedures the government must follow to comply with constitutional protections. Meanwhile, the court clarified that the administration can still deport migrants under other U.S. immigration laws—just not through this wartime provision without proper legal safeguards.
ACLU lead attorney Lee Gelernt hailed the ruling as a strong rejection of using a wartime law to circumvent legal rights during peacetime. “This is not just a legal issue; it’s a moral one. Fast-tracking people to prison in another country without a chance to speak up is deeply un-American,” he said.
The legal fight continues to raise troubling questions about how far the U.S. government can go in using national security laws for domestic immigration enforcement. Many of the deported migrants and their families have denied gang affiliations and say they were never informed of any accusations or allowed a court hearing before being removed.
This is not the first time Trump’s deportation tactics involving Venezuelans have come under scrutiny. Earlier in April, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees must receive timely notice and a fair chance to challenge their deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. Despite that, reports showed that officials at Texas’ Bluebonnet detention center were still moving people to El Salvador without judicial review.
As legal battles unfold, the ruling sends a strong message: even in times of heightened immigration crackdowns, constitutional protections cannot be ignored.
