In a significant legal development, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 18th-century wartime law invoked by the Trump administration. The ruling, delivered early Saturday, pauses all removal actions pending further legal review.
The decision follows an emergency appeal filed by immigration attorneys, who argued that the migrants faced imminent deportation without being given adequate legal notice or the opportunity to challenge their removal.
Conservative Justices Dissent as Case Progresses
The brief Supreme Court order did not include a detailed explanation but directed the administration to respond once the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals takes further action. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision, reflecting ideological division on the bench.
In the meantime, the court made it clear:
“The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court.”
Lower Court Expresses Concern But Lacks Authority
The case originated when a group of migrants held in Texas detention centers sought relief from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C. During an emergency hearing, Judge Boasberg expressed sympathy but acknowledged limited judicial power to intervene:
“I am sympathetic to everything you’re saying, I just don’t think I have the power to do anything.”
Despite concerns about procedural fairness, Boasberg declined to halt deportations, citing jurisdictional limitations, especially as the matter was already before the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit.
Trump Administration’s Use of Alien Enemies Act Under Scrutiny
This marks the second time that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has reached the Supreme Court. The justices previously ruled that while the administration can invoke the Act, detained migrants must receive proper notification and an opportunity to appeal their removal in the jurisdiction where they are being held.
The current legal challenge questions whether these standards are being met. Attorneys from the ACLU and Democracy Forward argue that migrants are receiving inadequate notice, in some cases less than 24 hours before scheduled deportation, with no clear path to contest the decision.
During the Friday hearing, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt submitted a photo of a removal notice, alleging it failed to meet Supreme Court requirements. In response, Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign maintained that while the administration provides notice, it is not required to explicitly offer a challenge process—an interpretation Boasberg questioned:
“I certainly think the notice is very troubling,” the judge said.
Contempt Proceedings and Legal Uncertainty
Adding to the complexity, Judge Boasberg had earlier initiated contempt proceedings against the administration for allegedly violating a prior court order temporarily blocking deportations. That order, however, was later nullified by the Supreme Court.
On Friday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals placed an administrative hold on Boasberg’s contempt efforts, pending further review.
What’s at Stake: Due Process vs. Executive Power
This high-stakes legal battle highlights the tension between executive immigration enforcement powers and migrant due process rights. The administration’s aggressive stance on applying the Alien Enemies Act has drawn national attention, with critics warning that it bypasses traditional legal safeguards in U.S. immigration law.
As of now, no deportation flights are confirmed, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintains the right to proceed.
With the case still active in both the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court, the outcome will likely shape how—and whether—the Alien Enemies Act can be used in modern immigration enforcement.
