WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Trump administration may continue using a centuries-old wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of gang ties—but only under judicial oversight and with due process.
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Court reinstated President Donald Trump’s ability to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century statute most famously used during World War II. The justices allowed deportations to resume, but clarified that detained migrants must be given notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal in court before being deported.
The majority ruled that any legal challenge to deportations must be filed in Texas, where the migrants are being held, rather than in Washington, D.C. The ruling lifted a temporary block on the deportations imposed by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, who had halted flights carrying hundreds of Venezuelan men to El Salvador.
Trump praised the decision on his Truth Social account, writing: “The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President… to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country. A great day for justice in America.”
Despite the ruling in his favor, the Court imposed limits. “The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia,” the majority opinion stated. But it emphasized that judicial review remains essential. “The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs,” the court wrote.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring with the majority, stressed that the only issue the court addressed was where the legal review should occur, not whether detainees were entitled to it. “All nine members of the court agree that judicial review is available,” he wrote.
The Alien Enemies Act, first passed in 1798, grants the president the authority to detain, deport, or restrict foreign nationals from countries at war with the U.S. Trump invoked the act on March 15, citing the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua as an “invading force” and a threat to national security.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the proclamation hours after it was issued, arguing the act only applies when the U.S. is at war or invaded. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt called the court’s requirement of judicial review “an important victory,” despite the administration’s broader win.
Boasberg’s order had attempted to stop the deportation flights, even directing planes in mid-air to return. However, government lawyers argued the flights had left U.S. airspace by the time his written order was filed, rendering it moot. The administration dismissed the weight of his spoken order delivered two hours earlier in court.
The deportations sent 238 Venezuelan men to El Salvador’s “Terrorism Confinement Center”, a facility known for its harsh conditions. The D.C. Circuit upheld Boasberg’s ruling temporarily, prompting an emergency appeal from the Trump administration.
The court’s decision prompted fierce dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal bloc and joined in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, accused the majority of enabling executive overreach and warned of the difficulty individuals would face challenging deportations. “We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she wrote.
Some deportees’ families and attorneys deny the alleged gang ties. One man, a professional soccer player, was labeled a gang member due to a tattoo of a crown, which his lawyer said honored his favorite team, Real Madrid.
The case has deepened tensions between Trump and the judiciary. After Boasberg’s ruling, Trump publicly called for his impeachment, a move condemned by Chief Justice John Roberts, who reminded that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
The ruling sets a precedent for Trump’s broader immigration agenda, which continues to face multiple legal hurdles as other cases—including those concerning birthright citizenship—await resolution.
