The Trump administration’s latest immigration enforcement measures are facing intense legal scrutiny, with experts arguing that the White House may have exceeded its authority. At the heart of the controversy is the administration’s use of rarely invoked laws—some dating back to the 18th and 20th centuries—to justify mass deportations and detentions.
Legal scholars suggest that the Supreme Court may ultimately decide whether President Donald Trump’s executive actions hold up under constitutional review. If challenged successfully, these moves could be reversed, setting a significant legal precedent for future administrations.
Deporting Venezuelan Gang Members Under a Wartime Law
A major point of contention is the administration’s reliance on the Alien Enemies Act, an obscure law from 1798. This law allows the president to detain and deport foreign nationals during times of war. The Trump administration cited this statute to justify the deportation of 238 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, whom they described as an “invading force.”
However, critics argue that the law was never meant to be used in this context. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg temporarily blocked these deportations, stating that the Alien Enemies Act applies only to hostile acts committed by nations, not criminal organizations. Despite this ruling, the administration proceeded with the deportations, setting the stage for a possible constitutional showdown.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit, arguing that the administration’s interpretation of the law violates due process rights. Legal experts are concerned that if left unchecked, this precedent could allow presidents to bypass the courts when deporting immigrants in the future.
Targeting a Columbia Student Sparks Free Speech Concerns
Another controversial case involves Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and lawful U.S. resident who was detained under a rarely used provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. This law allows the Secretary of State to deport individuals if their presence is deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy interests.
Khalil’s lawyers argue that his detention is politically motivated, as he has been active in pro-Palestinian protests. Trump, without presenting evidence, accused Khalil of supporting Hamas, leading to concerns that the administration is using immigration laws to silence political dissent.
Legal experts note that this provision has only been used once before—against Mario Ruiz Massieu, a Mexican official accused of corruption in 1995. A federal judge at the time ruled the law unconstitutional, stating that immigrants should not be deported without due process. However, the Clinton administration’s appeal prevented the case from setting a firm legal precedent.
Now, Khalil’s case is poised to reignite this legal battle, with a federal judge temporarily blocking his deportation. His lawyers argue that using this law to suppress political activism is a clear violation of First Amendment rights.
What Happens Next?
With these cases likely heading to the Supreme Court, the legal limits of presidential immigration authority will be put to the test. The court’s 6-3 conservative majority could influence the outcome, but legal scholars caution that granting unchecked power to the executive branch could set a dangerous precedent.
These developments signal a broader clash between national security policies and civil liberties, raising fundamental questions about how far a president can go in shaping immigration policy without congressional approval.
