US Supreme Court Backs Trump’s Use of Wartime Law to Expedite Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act

In a pivotal decision on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted former President Donald Trump a major legal victory, allowing the enforcement of the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport alleged gang members—most notably, a group of Venezuelan migrants accused of ties to the Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal gang.

The unsigned ruling, which temporarily lifts a lower court’s injunction, enables U.S. immigration authorities to proceed with deportations while broader legal challenges continue in lower courts. The decision is particularly significant given the controversial origins of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which was originally designed for wartime measures against foreign nationals suspected of posing national security threats.

Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act on March 15, targeting alleged members of the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua gang. The move was part of the Republican leader’s broader agenda to tighten immigration policies using executive authority. Critics, however, argue the act was never meant to be wielded during peacetime or used against individuals from countries with which the U.S. is not at war.

The Act grants the president the authority to detain, restrict, or deport individuals from hostile foreign nations during periods of declared war or invasion. Historically, it was used during World War II to intern Japanese, German, and Italian immigrants.

While the high court sided with the Trump administration, it imposed a critical caveat: migrants must be given proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to challenge their deportation orders through habeas corpus petitions before removal is carried out.

“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 justices wrote.

This provision reflects concerns raised by immigration advocates, who argue that expedited removals under the Alien Enemies Act could deny migrants their legal right to contest deportations.

The ruling comes in response to an emergency appeal filed by Trump’s legal team, contesting a March 15 order by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama-era appointee. Boasberg had temporarily blocked the deportations after a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of five Venezuelan men and a broader class of potentially affected individuals.

The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s executive action exceeded presidential powers, noting that the Alien Enemies Act is only applicable during declared war or active invasion—neither of which applies to Venezuela. Boasberg’s ruling halted removals but was ultimately overridden by the Supreme Court, which found no immediate grounds to prevent the law’s enforcement while litigation continues.

The case also drew scrutiny over whether the administration defied the court’s temporary injunction. Although Boasberg issued a verbal order during a hearing calling for deportation flights to be stopped, two aircraft had already departed U.S. airspace carrying 238 Venezuelan men to El Salvador, where they were reportedly transferred to the country’s Terrorism Confinement Center.

The Justice Department maintained that the judge’s written order—delivered after the flights had left—did not require their return, effectively dismissing the significance of his earlier spoken instruction.

The Supreme Court’s decision may set a precedent for broader applications of the Alien Enemies Act, raising questions about how far presidential authority can extend in immigration matters under the guise of national security. Legal experts warn that using wartime statutes in peacetime immigration enforcement could blur constitutional lines and diminish judicial oversight.

The ruling also signals a turning point in the ongoing political and legal debate over immigration enforcement in the United States—particularly in an election cycle where immigration remains a defining issue.

As litigation unfolds, the implications of invoking a 226-year-old law to address modern immigration challenges will continue to reverberate in legal, political, and humanitarian spheres.