Washington, April 7 — In a closely watched decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump’s administration, allowing it to utilize a centuries-old wartime law — the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. However, the court imposed key legal safeguards to ensure due process.
In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the court granted the administration’s request to lift a lower court order by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, which had temporarily halted deportations under the 1798 law. The justices made clear that while the executive branch may proceed with removals, detainees must first be given adequate legal notice and access to judicial review.
Deportations Must Allow Legal Recourse
The unsigned opinion stated that detainees must be notified within a “reasonable time” that they are being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. This notice must be delivered in a way that enables them to seek habeas corpus relief — a constitutional right allowing individuals to challenge unlawful detention — before removal takes place.
The court emphasized that the use of the 1798 law, which has traditionally been invoked only during wartime or national emergencies, does not eliminate an individual’s right to challenge their detention in court.
Sharp Divide Among Justices
While the court maintains a 6-3 conservative majority, the ruling saw an unusual split: Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in dissent, highlighting concerns over the scope of executive power and due process.
The Alien Enemies Act, part of the broader Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, allows the U.S. government to detain or remove nationals of hostile nations during times of conflict. Its modern-day use has been rare, and this marks one of the most high-profile attempts to apply it in a peacetime immigration context.
Immigration Policy Under Scrutiny
Trump’s effort to revive the centuries-old statute is part of a broader hardline immigration agenda that continues to shape U.S. political discourse. The decision reignites debate over executive authority, immigration enforcement, and constitutional protections for non-citizens.
Legal analysts expect further challenges in lower courts as the case proceeds. Meanwhile, immigration advocates have expressed concern over potential abuses of power, while supporters of the decision argue it strengthens national security and border control
