The U.S. Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to resume deporting over 100 Venezuelan migrants, relying on a centuries-old wartime statute. The decision, delivered late Monday, overturned a lower court’s temporary halt on the removals but left open avenues for future legal challenges.
Migrants Sent to El Salvador Amid Legal Controversy
At the center of the legal storm is the administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, used to justify the deportation of Venezuelan nationals accused of ties to the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. Last month, the administration transferred the first batch of detainees to Tecoluca Prison in El Salvador, sparking widespread criticism and lawsuits.
Rather than rule on the constitutional validity of this move, the Supreme Court delivered a procedural verdict. In an unsigned order, the justices said the lawsuit challenging the deportations was filed in the wrong venue. The legal action was brought in Washington, D.C., whereas the Venezuelan migrants are detained in Texas.
Court Requires Notification and Right to Challenge
While granting a partial win to the Trump administration, the ruling did not give it a free pass. The court emphasized that migrants must be notified in advance of any planned deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. This, the justices stated, ensures they are given a reasonable opportunity to challenge the government’s action in court.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, clarified that all nine justices agreed on this basic due process requirement. “They are entitled to advance notice and an opportunity to be heard,” he noted.
Also Read: Who Won the Debate? Albanese vs Dutton in Fiery Showdown
Sharp Dissent from Liberal Justices
The court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented strongly. Justice Sotomayor denounced the majority’s procedural decision as “suspect,” arguing that it enabled the administration to continue actions that could inflict “grave harm” on the deportees.
Justice Jackson, in a particularly forceful dissent, criticized the court’s use of the emergency docket to push through major rulings without full briefings or oral arguments. She likened the current ruling to Korematsu v. United States, the infamous 1944 decision that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
“With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s court leaves less and less of a trace,” Jackson wrote. “But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past.”
Trump Declares Victory on Social Media
President Donald J. Trump hailed the ruling as a win for national security and executive power. On his Truth Social platform, he posted, “The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law… A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!”
The administration had claimed that Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan street gang, posed a national security threat. In a March 14 proclamation, Trump alleged that the gang was acting “at the direction” of Venezuela’s government, framing the situation as a form of invasion.
Legal Battle Continues
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the legal journey is far from over. Lawyers for the migrants said they would refile their challenge in Texas, the jurisdiction identified by the court.
Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed mixed feelings about the ruling. “We are disappointed the case must start over in another court,” he said. “But we view it as a victory that the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the government can deport people without giving them any notice or chance to defend themselves.”
The administration’s request to the Supreme Court marked one of its most high-profile emergency applications so far. Critics see it as part of a broader strategy to use emergency powers to circumvent traditional due process protections in immigration policy.
Human Rights Concerns Mount
Human rights groups and immigration advocates have raised alarm over the use of El Salvador’s Tecoluca Prison to house deportees. The ACLU and Democracy Forward, which are representing the Venezuelan migrants, accused the administration of exploiting the Alien Enemies Act to sidestep criminal procedures and due process protections.
They argued in court that the deportees had been given no hearing, no legal representation, and were at risk of indefinite detention in a foreign prison. A lower court had briefly blocked the deportations, with one appellate judge stating that the migrants had been denied “even a gossamer thread of due process
