The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling against the Trump administration on Friday, declaring that its efforts to deport Venezuelan migrants to a prison in El Salvador violated their due process rights. This decision marks a substantial setback for the administration, which faced criticism for attempting to expedite the removal of these individuals without providing them a fair opportunity to contest their deportation.
In a decisive move, the court extended an injunction, restricting the government from deporting an entire group of migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a controversial statute invoked by the administration. While only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, the ruling represents a considerable blow to the administration’s policies.
The court’s decision did not resolve whether the Alien Enemies Act could be used to deport migrants to foreign prisons but emphasized the necessity of constitutional safeguards, protecting individuals from unlawful expulsion and imprisonment abroad. The ruling was issued with urgency, bypassing normal procedures, indicating the gravity of the situation.
This ruling follows a previous intervention by the Supreme Court regarding the administration’s attempts to deport migrants to CECOT, a notorious prison in El Salvador. Earlier this year, the president cited the Alien Enemies Act, typically applied to wartime situations, to justify expedited deportations, accusing the migrants of being part of a Venezuelan gang without evidence.
The administration had initially deported over 200 individuals to CECOT, allegedly violating a district court order. Evidence suggested that similar actions were imminent in Texas, prompting the Supreme Court’s emergency intervention to halt these efforts.
The court’s latest unsigned decision underscores the importance of due process in deportation proceedings, reaffirming that migrants are entitled to legal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The court highlighted the government’s failure to provide adequate notice to the migrants, often giving them less than 24 hours’ notice before deportation, without sufficient information on how to contest the removal.
In response to this failure, the Supreme Court decided that the administration had breached the migrants’ due process rights, mandating lower courts to outline appropriate procedures. Meanwhile, the court maintained its injunction, preventing further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
The court’s actions bypassed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, highlighting the urgency and extraordinary nature of the case. The majority expressed frustration with lower courts’ delays in addressing the deportations, necessitating Supreme Court intervention.
The injunction extends protection to all migrants detained in Texas who face deportation under the Alien Enemies Act, suggesting skepticism toward the executive branch’s credibility in respecting migrants’ rights. The Justice Department had promised not to deport specific plaintiffs but did not extend this assurance to others, prompting the court to enforce classwide relief.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated the need for a resolution on whether the Alien Enemies Act could be applied to migrants, urging swift proceedings on the matter. However, the threat of deportation under this act remains for noncitizens targeted by the administration.
Alito’s dissent, supported by Thomas, focused on procedural disagreements, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to protect the migrants at this stage. Their stance highlights a division within the court regarding the level of deference the Trump administration should receive.
While the Supreme Court may grant the administration victories in the future, this issue reveals a fracture among the conservative majority, with several justices expressing concerns over the administration’s approach to constitutional principles. The court’s decision is a critical moment, emphasizing the need to uphold fundamental rights against governmental overreach.
