Supreme Court halts Trump’s deportation of Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act

Controversial use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua members is paused amid legal outcry.

The U.S. Supreme Court is reflected in a bus window on Capitol Hill in Washington, on April 8, 2025. Photo by Tom Brenner/Getty Images

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

The Supreme Court has issued an emergency order to pause the Trump deportation of Venezuelans under a centuries-old law, the Alien Enemies Act, marking a significant intervention in what has quickly become one of the most controversial immigration enforcement campaigns of the year. The ruling temporarily blocks the expulsion of migrants accused—often with minimal evidence—of ties to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

This decision comes just weeks after former President Donald Trump, who is again campaigning for the presidency, invoked the rarely used Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify the deportation of dozens of Venezuelan migrants. The administration claimed the migrants posed a threat to national security, despite widespread concerns from legal experts and human rights advocates.

Trump revives an 18th-century law for modern deportations

In a move that shocked immigration attorneys and historians alike, Trump utilized the Alien Enemies Act—a law that has only been used during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II—as a legal basis to round up migrants suspected of gang affiliation. Specifically, the administration targeted individuals alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that has gained notoriety in recent years.

Under the executive order, these detainees were quickly transferred from holding facilities in Texas to El Salvador’s newly built Terrorism Confinement Center. This maximum-security mega-prison has room for 40,000 inmates and is notorious for its harsh conditions: no visitors, no windows, and no mattresses.

Legal challenge leads to Supreme Court intervention

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an emergency appeal late Friday, warning that the Trump deportation of Venezuelans was happening without due process. The organization argued that the migrants—many of whom had not been convicted of any crime—were being deported solely based on superficial markers like tattoos or unsubstantiated allegations.

According to the ACLU’s court filing, several migrants had already been loaded onto buses "presumably headed to the airport." The group emphasized the urgency of the situation, stating that these deportations could occur "imminently" and without any chance for the individuals to challenge their removal.

In its Saturday morning order, the Supreme Court responded by halting any further removals under the Alien Enemies Act, stating clearly: “The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court.”

Due process concerns and administrative chaos

The use of the Alien Enemies Act has also led to significant administrative confusion. One deportee, Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Maryland resident with legal status—was mistakenly sent to El Salvador last month. The White House later admitted his case involved an “administrative error,” further fueling criticisms that the policy is being executed without adequate oversight.

The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling on April 7 underscored that individuals targeted under the Alien Enemies Act must be granted the right to challenge their removal in court. Yet the Trump administration has forged ahead with at least some deportations, raising constitutional concerns.

Controversy surrounding gang affiliation claims

Lawyers representing some of the deported migrants insist their clients were wrongfully accused of being affiliated with Tren de Aragua. In many instances, they argue, the accusations are based on tattoos or vague associations, not criminal records or verified intelligence.

“They are being targeted for how they look, not what they’ve done,” said one attorney working with the ACLU. “The Trump deportation of Venezuelans under this obscure law is profiling, not law enforcement.”

Trump, meanwhile, has doubled down. During a campaign stop in Arizona, he accused Venezuela of “sending gangsters and murderers” into the United States, likening the influx to an invasion. He said the deportation policy was “just the beginning” and that “more will follow.”

Political fallout and international complications

The international reaction has also been tense. Salvadoran officials have expressed concern over being used as a dumping ground for U.S. detainees without proper vetting.

Negotiations between American diplomats and Salvadoran leaders have reportedly stalled over the handling of deportees and their legal status in the country. The Salvadoran government, which recently built the Terrorism Confinement Center to house its own criminal suspects, is now faced with accommodating foreign detainees swept up in a legal gray zone.

Broader implications for immigration policy

The Trump deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act may set a new and troubling precedent. Legal scholars argue that if the Supreme Court ultimately allows this interpretation of the law to stand, it could open the door for future administrations to use it as a blanket justification for deporting entire groups of people deemed “hostile.”

Historian Linda Caplan of Georgetown University notes that “the law was originally passed in the context of formal wars between nation-states. Using it against civilians based on nationality or presumed gang ties is a serious escalation.”

Immigration policy analysts are also watching the case closely. With Trump’s ongoing campaign promise to remove millions of undocumented migrants, many fear that the revival of the Alien Enemies Act may become a cornerstone of a more aggressive and less transparent immigration enforcement regime.

Next steps in the legal battle

The Supreme Court has not set a date for the next hearing on the matter, but legal experts believe it will move quickly given the potential implications. For now, deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are on hold, but rights groups remain wary.

“We won a pause, not a victory,” said ACLU attorney Diego Morales. “We still have to prove that these deportations are illegal and unconstitutional. The fight isn’t over.”

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan migrants still in U.S. custody remain in limbo, unsure whether they’ll be granted a fair hearing or sent away with no warning.

As the legal and political storm continues to build, one thing is clear: the Trump deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act has become a flashpoint in America’s ongoing immigration debate—raising profound questions about due process, national security, and the limits of executive power.