The Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the Trump administration to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for deporting suspected Venezuelan gang members has ignited a legal firestorm, with the ACLU mounting a vigorous challenge.
At a Glance
- Supreme Court permits use of 1798 Alien Enemies Act for deportations
- ACLU files lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Act’s application
- Deportations target alleged members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua
- Court emphasizes the necessity of due process for affected individuals
- Legal debates intensify over executive power and civil liberties
Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision
In a narrow 5–4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has authorized the Trump administration to proceed with deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, a statute dating back to 1798. This decision specifically targets Venezuelan nationals suspected of affiliation with the Tren de Aragua gang, which the administration has labeled a terrorist organization, citing national security concerns.
Watch reporting on the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Court emphasized that while the executive branch may invoke the Act, individuals facing deportation must still be granted the opportunity for judicial review. Legal petitions must be filed where the detainees are being held—predominantly in Texas—complicating access to legal aid for many involved.
ACLU’s Legal Challenge
In response, the American Civil Liberties Union, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union and The Legal Aid Society, filed an emergency lawsuit in a New York federal court. The suit argues that the Alien Enemies Act should only apply during a congressionally declared war and that using it to deport noncitizens during peacetime violates constitutional due process protections.
The case features two Venezuelan nationals—one accused of criminal gang ties, the other citing political persecution. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status to broaden protections to other similarly situated individuals potentially subject to removal under the statute.
Due Process Concerns
Central to the ACLU’s argument is that individuals deported under the Act are entitled to a meaningful hearing. The group warns that without judicial review, deportees could face indefinite detention or serious harm abroad, particularly in politically unstable regions like Venezuela.
The Supreme Court’s opinion reflects some of these concerns, reaffirming that while the government may initiate removals under the Alien Enemies Act, it cannot deny the basic right to contest those actions in court. This ruling means individuals like Abrego Garcia—who was previously deported without a hearing—must now be given the chance to prove their lack of gang affiliation or criminal involvement.
Wider Implications
This legal standoff shines a spotlight on the expanding use of executive power in immigration enforcement. Critics of the administration argue that the Alien Enemies Act, originally passed to address wartime threats, is being misused to bypass established immigration procedures under the guise of national security.
Proponents, including Trump-era officials, argue the strategy is necessary to deal with what they claim are international criminal enterprises exploiting U.S. immigration law. With both sides preparing for prolonged legal conflict, future rulings could dramatically reshape how the government defines and handles so-called “enemy aliens” in modern contexts.
The outcomes in the coming months could define the balance between preserving civil liberties and addressing national security threats within the U.S. legal system. As courts wrestle with these questions, the future application of the Alien Enemies Act—and possibly other wartime statutes—hangs in the balance.
