U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Deportation of Venezuelan Detainees
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily halted the deportation of a group of Venezuelan nationals targeted under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a controversial move initiated during former President Donald Trump’s administration.
In a short, unsigned order issued on Saturday, the Court instructed federal authorities not to deport any individuals from the group until further notice.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an emergency appeal after reports surfaced that several detainees in North Texas were being prepared for immediate deportation without receiving proper legal procedures.
The Trump administration had invoked the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act — typically used only in times of war — to justify the deportation of individuals alleged to be affiliated with gangs, including the Venezuelan group Tren de Aragua.
According to official data, out of 261 Venezuelans deported since April 8, at least 137 were removed using this law.
The ACLU contends that the detainees were not made aware of their rights and were served documents solely in English, despite not being fluent in the language. A lower court had already restricted some removals in March over concerns related to due process violations.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to halt the deportations, issuing dissenting opinions.
This development may further strain relations between the judiciary and the executive, possibly sparking a larger constitutional debate over immigration authority.
A separate incident involving the mistaken deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Salvadoran national, has added fuel to the controversy. Although the administration claimed he had links to the MS-13 gang, it later acknowledged the error. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that he be allowed to return to the U.S., although authorities stated he would not be permitted to stay.
Former President Trump has pledged to use aggressive executive actions to crack down on international criminal groups, bypassing conventional immigration laws. Critics argue these tactics push constitutional boundaries and undermine legal safeguards.
The White House has yet to issue a response to the Court’s latest ruling.
