The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime powers law dating back to 1798, to expedite the deportation of alleged gang members, despite opposition from civil liberties groups. The ruling has allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador, a decision the administration frames as crucial for national security.
The case arose after a lower court blocked the deportation of several Venezuelan nationals, who were allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang, on March 15, 2025. This group, accused of conducting criminal activities such as drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and violent crimes across several countries, was described by the Trump administration as engaging in “irregular warfare” against the United States. The government argued that these individuals could be deported under the Alien Enemies Act, which gives the president authority to deport citizens of an enemy nation during wartime.
Initially, a lower court ruled that the deportation process under the Act needed further review, claiming that the legal grounds for such deportations were insufficiently examined. In response, the Supreme Court stepped in, lifting the block and allowing deportations to proceed, but with a key stipulation: deportees must be given a reasonable opportunity to challenge their removal. The ruling emphasized that deportees should be notified in time and given the chance to seek habeas relief, ensuring due process.
However, the decision was not unanimous. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with three liberal justices, dissented, voicing concerns that the administration’s actions represented a significant threat to the rule of law. In their dissent, they criticized the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, asserting that it undermined the judicial process and ignored established legal norms.
Despite the dissent, Trump praised the decision as a victory for justice and the rule of law. He declared it a triumph for the president’s power to secure US borders and protect the country. Meanwhile, civil rights groups, particularly the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), viewed the decision as a partial victory, emphasizing that the ruling ensured deportees would have the opportunity to challenge their removal, albeit in a different court. The ACLU expressed disappointment that the legal battle would need to be started over but remained hopeful that the procedural protections outlined by the Court would help safeguard the rights of those affected.
The case is part of a broader trend of aggressive immigration policies under the Trump administration. The use of the Alien Enemies Act is particularly controversial, as it was last invoked during World War II. The Act grants the president the power to deport nationals or citizens of countries considered enemies of the United States, without following normal judicial processes. Critics argue that its use in this context is unprecedented and potentially unconstitutional, given that only Congress can declare war, not the president.
At least 137 individuals have already been deported under the Alien Enemies Act during the Trump administration. Immigration officials have defended these actions, claiming that the deportees were carefully vetted and confirmed as gang members before being flown to El Salvador. However, some relatives of the deported individuals have disputed these claims, asserting that the deportees were wrongly identified as gang members due to their tattoos or other misunderstandings.
This legal and political battle has sparked intense debate over the balance between national security concerns and civil liberties, with ongoing challenges to the invocation of wartime powers in the context of immigration enforcement.
