The Supreme Court of the United States vacated temporary restraining orders issued by the District Court for the District of Columbia that had halted the deportation of Venezuelan nationals accused of being members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a criminal organization designated as a foreign terrorist entity by the U.S. State Department. The ruling grants the federal government authority to proceed with removals under the Republican party’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a centuries-old wartime statute.
The case stems from President Trump’s Proclamation No. 10903, which invoked the Alien Enemies Act to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals allegedly affiliated with TdA. The proclamation defines “alien enemies” as Venezuelan citizens aged 14 or older who are members of TdA and are neither naturalized U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The government argued that TdA’s activities constituted an “invasion” and “irregular warfare” against U.S. territory, despite no formal state of war between the United States and Venezuela.
Five detainees and a provisionally certified class challenged their removal under the proclamation, asserting constitutional violations and procedural deficiencies. The District Court issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) halting deportations pending further review, but these orders were extended twice to allow time for judicial consideration.
The Supreme Court vacated the TROs on procedural grounds, ruling that challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought as habeas corpus petitions in the district where detainees are confined—in this case, Texas—not in Washington, D.C. The Court emphasized that habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for claims contesting confinement and removal under statutes that preclude broader judicial review.
The majority opinion also clarified that detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal under due process principles before deportation occurs. However, it rejected the lower court’s venue for adjudicating these claims, concluding that jurisdiction lies solely in the district of confinement.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett (in part), issued a sharp dissent criticizing the majority’s decision as rushed and harmful. She argued that forcing detainees to file individual habeas petitions in scattered jurisdictions undermines their ability to secure timely legal representation and exposes them to severe risks if erroneously deported.
Sotomayor highlighted evidence of dire conditions at El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), where deported individuals face overcrowding, inadequate food and water, and life-threatening abuse. She accused the government of attempting to evade judicial scrutiny by hastily deporting individuals before courts could assess their claims.
Justice Jackson wrote separately to condemn the Court’s procedural approach as “fly-by-night” decision-making that disregards established deliberative processes. She warned of grave consequences for liberty when constitutional challenges are resolved without thorough examination.
This decision marks an unprecedented peacetime invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, which had previously been used only during declared wars such as World War II. Critics argue that its use against alleged gang members rather than enemy combatants stretches its original intent and raises significant constitutional questions.
While the Supreme Court affirmed detainees’ right to judicial review before removal, its ruling shifts procedural burdens onto individuals already facing logistical and legal hurdles. Advocates fear this will lead to rushed deportations without adequate safeguards against errors or abuses.
The ruling in Trump v. J.G.G. reaffirmed that individuals detained under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) are entitled to due process protections under the Fifth Amendment, including notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal before deportation. The Court emphasized that detainees must receive notification of their potential removal “within a reasonable time” and in a manner that allows them to file habeas corpus petitions in the proper venue prior to deportation.
This decision rejected the Trump administration’s earlier practice of expedited deportations without judicial review, clarifying that detainees have the right to contest both the interpretation and application of the AEA, as well as their designation as “alien enemies.”
While all nine justices agreed on the necessity of due process, the ruling was contentious regarding procedural specifics. The majority held that habeas corpus is the exclusive legal avenue for such challenges, precluding broader claims under statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act. This procedural limitation drew criticism from dissenting justices, who argued it imposes significant burdens on detainees, particularly those unable to secure legal representation or navigate complex legal processes in time.
The fate of individuals who were deported under the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), including those who may have been wrongfully removed, remains uncertain.
Many of the deported individuals were sent to El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), a facility notorious for overcrowding, lack of basic necessities, and reports of human rights abuses. Detainees in CECOT face severe risks, including inadequate food, water, and medical care, as well as confinement in inhumane conditions. Reports indicate that some deportees sent there had no criminal convictions or gang affiliations, raising concerns about wrongful deportations.
Of the 238 Venezuelan migrants sent to El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), 75% had no apparent criminal history, according to a CBS News report. Among those with records, most were for non-violent offenses such as theft or trespassing, while only about a dozen were accused of serious crimes like murder or assault.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident and legal immigrant, was wrongfully deported to El Salvador last month in what the Trump administration has admitted was an “administrative error.” Despite a 2019 court order explicitly protecting him from deportation to his home country due to fears of gang-related persecution, Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison on March 15. Abrego Garcia, who has lived in the U.S. since 2011, is married to a U.S. citizen and raising three children in Maryland.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis called the deportation a “grievous error” and ordered his return by April 7, describing his placement in CECOT as “shocking to the conscience.” The administration pushed back against this order, arguing that facilitating his return would require sensitive international negotiations that cannot be constrained by judicial deadlines. The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the order late Monday night, leaving Abrego Garcia in limbo.
The Justice Department has alleged that Abrego Garcia is affiliated with MS-13, a gang designated as a terrorist organization by the Republican administration. However, no evidence has been presented in court to substantiate these claims. His attorneys have vehemently denied any gang ties and described his deportation as an illegal act.
The U.S. government has argued that it lacks the authority to retrieve individuals mistakenly deported to foreign prisons like. The Republican Party does not appear to have plans to provide a pathway to due process for individuals already deported to El Salvador’s notorious prison, CECOT, including those who may have been wrongfully removed.
