Supreme Court Allows Deportation of Suspected Gang Members Under Alien Enemies Act

In a narrow 5-4 decision on April 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court authorized the Trump administration to deport individuals suspected of being members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a statute traditionally reserved for wartime scenarios. While permitting the deportations, the Court imposed limitations to ensure due process rights are preserved.

The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, grants the U.S. President authority to detain and deport non-citizens from countries with which the United States is at war. Historically, this law has been applied during declared wars to manage individuals from enemy nations. Its invocation in the context of deporting alleged gang members from Venezuela—a country with which the U.S. is not at war—marks a significant and unprecedented application of the statute.

The Tren de Aragua is a transnational criminal organization originating from Venezuela. Established around 2005, the gang has expanded its operations across multiple countries, including Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Panama, Costa Rica, Chile, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States. The organization is involved in various criminal activities such as human trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion, illegal mining, kidnappings-for-ransom, and money laundering. Estimates suggest the gang comprises between 4,000 to 5,000 members.

The Supreme Court's ruling allows the administration to deport individuals suspected of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang but imposes limitations to ensure due process rights are preserved. Specifically, detainees must be notified of their deportation status in time to seek habeas corpus relief. Additionally, the Court emphasized that legal challenges must occur in the jurisdiction where detainees are held, shifting proceedings from Washington, D.C., to Texas. Notably, the Court did not rule on the overall legality of invoking the Alien Enemies Act under current circumstances.

The decision has elicited varied responses. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling as a jurisdictional victory for the administration. Conversely, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) views the decision as a partial victory due to the due process requirements imposed by the Court. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt emphasized the necessity of due process, stating, "The ruling upheld the necessity of due process."

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, criticizing the majority’s decision and warning of potential harm to detainees. She expressed concern over the expedited nature of the ruling and its potential impact on individuals' rights.

The legal battle is far from over. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg canceled a scheduled hearing on whether to implement a longer block on the deportations, following the Supreme Court's ruling. Judge Boasberg has asked the migrants' lawyers to clarify by April 16 whether they wish to pursue a preliminary injunction. The administration is also dealing with fallout from the mistaken deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was sent to El Salvador despite a judge's ruling that he could face persecution.

The application of the Alien Enemies Act in this context raises concerns about the potential for broad executive authority in immigration enforcement, especially when using statutes designed for wartime scenarios. Civil liberties advocates worry about the erosion of due process rights and the precedent this sets for future immigration policies. The deportation of individuals to countries where they may face persecution or violence further complicates the ethical and legal dimensions of this policy.

The Supreme Court's decision has significant implications for U.S. immigration policy and civil liberties. By allowing the use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context, the ruling sets a precedent for applying wartime statutes to peacetime immigration enforcement. The Court's requirement for timely notification to detainees aims to uphold due process rights, ensuring individuals have the opportunity to challenge their deportation through habeas corpus petitions. The shift of legal proceedings to Texas reflects the Court's emphasis on jurisdictional propriety.

As the legal proceedings continue, the balance between national security measures and the preservation of individual rights remains a contentious issue, with potential long-term effects on the U.S. immigration system and the application of historical laws in modern contexts.