The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday, May 16, temporarily blocking the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan nationals under the rarely-used 1798 Alien Enemies Act without providing adequate notice. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that detainees are entitled to more notification time and better resources to challenge their removal orders than the administration had provided, emphasizing constitutional due process requirements even in immigration enforcement actions under wartime powers.
The Court’s unsigned opinion in A.A.R.P. v. Trump maintained an injunction preventing the deportation of Venezuelan nationals detained in northern Texas whom the administration had identified as members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. The Court vacated a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that had dismissed the detainees’ emergency appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
“[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property. We have long held that ‘no person shall be’ removed from the United States ‘without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.’ Due process requires notice that is ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties’ and that ‘afford[s] a reasonable time . . . to make [an] appearance.”
“Accordingly, in J. G. G., this Court explained—with all nine Justices agreeing—that ‘AEA detainees must receive notice . . . that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief ‘ before removal. In order to ‘actually seek habeas relief,’ a detainee must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief.”
The court continued, “Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”
The Court did not address the underlying question of whether the Trump administration can legally use the Alien Enemies Act to deport these individuals, instead focusing solely on the notice requirement.
The case reached the Supreme Court through extraordinary circumstances. On April 18, detainees were notified they would be removed “tonight or tomorrow” with minimal time to challenge their deportations. When a district court judge in Texas did not immediately rule on an emergency request for a temporary restraining order, attorneys for the detainees filed an appeal and an emergency application to the Supreme Court.
According to the Court’s opinion, evidence indicated “the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA-including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility”. This prompted the Supreme Court to issue an unusual order after midnight on April 19, directing the government not to remove any detainees until further notice.
The Court noted a particular concern that once deported, individuals might have no recourse: “The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual (Kilmar Abrego Garcia) deported in error to a prison in El Salvador”.
The Court emphasized the provisional nature of its relief, remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to establish constitutionally mandated notification standards for individuals facing deportation under wartime statutes. This interim measure preserves judicial oversight while lower courts determine the minimum procedural safeguards required under due process principles before executing removals.
“To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18,” the 7-2 majority wrote.
“We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
“In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the ruling but wrote separately to argue that the Court should have immediately addressed the underlying legal questions rather than sending the case back to lower courts.
“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court,” Kavanaugh wrote. “At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues”.
Kavanaugh highlighted that district courts across the country have already issued conflicting rulings on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. On May 13, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that the president could use the AEA but must give detainees at least 21 days’ notice, while a Texas judge ruled on May 1 that using the law for deportations was unlawful.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority opinion, with Alito authoring a dissent challenging both the Court’s authority to intervene and its portrayal of lower court proceedings. Alito asserted the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue relief, arguing the majority overstepped its constitutional role by intervening without proper legal standing. He contended the applicants failed to meet the necessary thresholds for injunctive relief, emphasizing procedural deficiencies in their request.
Alito criticized the majority’s characterization of the district court’s 14-hour and 28-minute delay in ruling as a constructive denial of relief, calling this timeline analysis fundamentally misleading. He maintained the district judge had acted with appropriate diligence given the case’s complexity, working urgently to resolve intricate legal questions rather than negligently delaying action.
The dissent further challenged the legal foundation for granting class-wide relief in habeas corpus proceedings, arguing such collective actions lack historical precedent in this jurisdictional context.
President Donald Trump raged against the ruling later Friday afternoon.
“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he wrote in a post on Truth Social.
In a follow-up post, he complained that the court “is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do.”
“Sleepy Joe Biden allowed MILLIONS of Criminal Aliens to come into our Country without any ‘PROCESS’ but, in order to get them out of our Country, we have to go through a long and extended PROCESS,” Trump wrote. “This is a bad and dangerous day for America!”
Under U.S. law, all noncitizens encountered at borders undergo vetting, including biometric checks against U.S. criminal databases and interviews to assess asylum eligibility. While the Biden administration ended Title 42 expulsions in May 2023, it replaced them with Title 8 processing, which allows for expedited removal but mandates screenings for fear of persecution.
The Biden administration expanded ATD programs, which include GPS monitoring and check-ins, rather than releasing individuals without oversight.
As of March 2025, 4 million cases were pending in immigration courts, with an average resolution time of 3 years. Complex cases involving asylum or appeals can take over a decade.
While some removals occur within weeks under expedited processes, these apply primarily to recent border crossers without credible fear claims. Individuals with longstanding ties to the U.S. or pending asylum claims receive fuller hearings.
Trump went on to repost a suggestion from an adviser to house “terrorists” near the homes of Supreme Court Justices.
