If you’ve been following the messy legal battle over President Trump’s attempt to deport Venezuelans in the U.S., you may feel like there’s a new story about it coming out every other day. Indeed, there’s a lot going on. As detention facilities fill and planes stand ready on tarmacs, judges across America find themselves making decisions that will determine the fate of thousands.
Behind the legal jargon lies a fundamental question that cuts to the heart of American values: Can national security concerns justify bypassing due process? The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued an opinion in the matter. Let’s rewind a little to see how we got here.
Courts Grapple with Deportation Order
Following Trump's March 15 order, the Department of Homeland Security swiftly relocated Venezuelan migrants—suspected members of a notorious Venezuelan gang—to Texas detention facilities before executive action was signed. This prompted an emergency hearing in D.C.'s District Court questioning the appropriateness of using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The AEA allows for the detention and deportation of non-citizens from nations at war with the U.S. or during an invasion by a foreign government. The 36-page opinion found that the administration exceeded the scope of the AEA.
Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting deportations and demanding return of planes carrying detainees to El Salvador’s terrorism confinement prison—a directive ultimately unheeded as deportees lacked due process opportunities like habeas corpus petitions challenging their detention legitimacy.
In April, SCOTUS issued a ruling allowing the contested deportation, vacating Judge Boasberg's TRO. While granting the Trump administration authority to continue deportations, the Court mandated that detainees receive "reasonable time" for due process to challenge their removal. SCOTUS did not address the legality of Trump’s order under the AEA, but did clarify procedural requirements for habeas corpus actions—mandating notice within reasonable timeframes, enabling detainees to seek relief in proper venues before removal occurs.
A Patchwork of Rulings
Post-decision developments included ACLU's emergency lawsuit challenging detention legality and federal judges in different parts of the country issuing their own TROs. For example, at the beginning of this month, a federal district judge in Texas issued a ruling against Trump's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to fast-track deportations of Venezuelan migrants.
The judge emphasized that the terms used in the AEA such as "invasion" and "predatory incursion" historically refer to military actions or organized armed forces intending to conquer or control territory. The judge noted that the administration's portrayal of a notable Venezuelan gang as a threat did not meet the AEA's statutory requirements, as its criminal activities did not constitute a military invasion. The judge issued a permanent injunction against the federal government from detaining, transferring, or removing not only the named plaintiffs but anyone similarly situated under the AEA in the Southern District of Texas.
The various parallel legal battles indicated unresolved issues requiring further Supreme Court consideration amid continuing deportations. The Fifth Circuit previously dismissed the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing the district court's inaction as a constructive denial of injunction. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, asserting appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders that effectively refuse an injunction when faced with imminent and irreparable harm.
SCOTUS Saves the Injunction
Then, last week, SCOTUS issued a per curiam opinion granting temporary injunctive relief to Venezuelan detainees. The ruling underscored the fundamental importance of procedural due process rights in deportation proceedings.
The Court emphasized that detainees must be afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to contest their removal before it occurs—a principle rooted deeply in constitutional protections. The majority criticized the government's plan to execute removals with only 24 hours' notice, devoid of essential information necessary for exercising due process rights. The Court reiterated that, as per the Constitution, "no person shall be" removed from U.S. soil without an opportunity to be heard. It also cited longstanding precedents affirming that due process requires notice given in sufficient time for the parties to act meaningfully (e.g., “contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief”).
While the majority acknowledged the government’s national security concerns, they maintained that such interests must align with constitutional mandates—a balance critical in safeguarding individual rights amidst executive actions impacting immigration enforcement. In remanding the case back to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings, the SCOTUS instructed lower courts to address all preliminary injunction factors expeditiously while ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards.
Divided Justices
Justice Kavanaugh agreed in the majority’s ultimate outcome in granting the injunction, but thought that the majority was being too hands-off with the case, at the jeopardy of both fundamental liberties and threats to national security. He expressed a preference for prompt resolution by SCOTUS rather than remanding to lower courts, advocating for immediate certiorari, expedited briefing, and oral argument to address these significant legal issues comprehensively.
Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from the majority’s decision, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction and authority to issue the relief they did. Justice Alito questioned the availability of class relief in habeas proceedings and warned against granting certiorari before any merits decision by lower courts. He emphasized that interim relief should not bypass the rigorous analysis required for class certification.
The Road Ahead
What can we expect? Well, there are still two pivotal legal questions that require resolution: first, whether the AEA (distinct from standard removal processes outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act) authorizes removals like the kind the Trump admin has been trying to get underway; and second, what procedural notice is due to detainees before any removal action is undertaken.
Various federal district courts have already issued conflicting rulings on these underlying legal issues, which really highlights the urgency and complexity of this whole matter. It’s probably safe to say that this is not the last time SCOTUS will get its hands wet in the Venezuelan deportation issue, but now that the most urgent part is out of the way, it might be a while before the case goes back to them.
Related Resources:
- Federal Law Prohibits the Deportation of Incarcerated U.S. Citizens (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Court Curbs Trump's Power to Deport Venezuelans as 'Alien Enemies' (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
