Supreme Court Green-Lights Trump’s Deportation of Gang Members Using 1798 Law

Historic War-Era Law Now Being Used for Immigration Enforcement

In a pivotal ruling, the US Supreme Court has temporarily permitted President Donald Trump to continue deportations of alleged gang members through the rarely-invoked Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This centuries-old wartime statute is now at the center of America’s immigration debate, though the Court clearly emphasized that individuals must be given proper opportunity to legally contest their removal.

The ruling effectively overturns a March 15 lower court order that had halted the deportation of several Venezuelan nationals. That court had demanded additional legal scrutiny into the Trump administration’s application of this historic act—originally crafted during tensions with France—to target migrants allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang.

Presidential Powers vs. Constitutional Rights

President Trump has characterized Tren de Aragua as waging “irregular warfare” against the United States, using this framing to justify invoking the 1798 law. While Trump celebrated the decision as a “great day for justice,” the Supreme Court’s unsigned ruling specifically highlights that migrants must receive adequate notice and fair opportunity to challenge deportation orders.

In a notable development, Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent. Barrett warned that the administration’s approach represented “an extraordinary threat to the rule of law”—creating an unusual 5-4 split that crossed typical ideological lines.

Both Sides Claim Victory

Following the ruling, both the administration and civil liberties advocates found elements to celebrate:

• President Trump took to Truth Social to praise the decision, framing it as a reaffirmation of presidential authority to protect national security and enforce border control
• The ACLU emphasized the Court’s due process requirements, announcing plans to refile their case in the appropriate court

Controversial Application of a Wartime Power

The administration has already deported over 130 individuals under the Alien Enemies Act during Trump’s targeted campaign against what he terms foreign criminal organizations. Critics have raised serious concerns about applying a law designed for wartime scenarios during peacetime, noting its historical usage was limited to declared wars like World War II.

Questions of Due Process and Identification

While immigration authorities maintain those deported were confirmed Tren de Aragua members—a transnational gang linked to serious crimes including human trafficking and homicide—some deportees’ families have challenged these identifications, claiming their relatives were wrongfully targeted due to tattoos or circumstantial factors.

The Supreme Court’s decision reverses Judge James Boasberg’s earlier ruling, which had criticized the government’s compliance as “woefully insufficient.” His temporary injunction aimed to stop deportation flights, though officials noted some removals had already occurred before the order was issued.

Human rights organizations continue to strongly condemn the administration’s use of this 18th-century statute, arguing it circumvents modern judicial standards and potentially ensnares innocent people under the banner of national security.

What This Means for Immigration Policy

This ruling represents a significant, if temporary, win for the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy. However, the Court’s emphasis on due process suggests limits to how the 1798 law can be implemented.

As this legal battle continues in lower courts, immigration attorneys, policymakers, and affected communities will be watching closely to see how the balance between national security concerns and individual rights unfolds.