Supreme Court Extends Block On Trump’s Deportation Bid Under Alien Enemies Act

President Donald Trump’s drive to use an 18th-century law to rapidly expel alleged Venezuelan gang members suffered another legal setback Friday as the Supreme Court extended its block on deporting dozens of men in immigration detention in northern Texas.

The court emphasized that the men — whom the Trump administration has labeled “alien enemies” — are entitled to more due process than the administration has so far provided. That means advance notice of their deportations and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the deportations in court, the justices wrote in an unsigned opinion.

In particular, the justices faulted the administration for its attempt last month to carry out swift deportations just one day after providing a bare-bones deportation notice to the detainees. The Supreme Court intervened at the time to stop those deportations, and in Friday’s decision, the court elaborated on its decision and extended its order blocking them.

“Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the court’s opinion said, without deciding exactly how much notice is required.

Two justices — Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — dissented from the ruling Friday.

Although the ruling Friday technically applies only to the men detained in northern Texas, other lawsuits have cropped up across the country raising similar challenges, including in New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania and a separate district in Texas. Several federal judges have barred the administration from rapidly deporting detainees in their districts.

Trump is trying to carry out the deportations using the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that gives the president the power to expel foreigners during wars or invasions. He has deployed the law against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which Trump has designated a terrorist organization.

Friday’s ruling noted that it was not resolving the legality of Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. That question is being litigated in lower courts.

In March, Trump used the law to quickly deport more than 130 Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The deportees received little or no due process, and lawyers for the immigrants have argued that at least some of them have no gang ties at all.

Immigrant rights lawyers tried to block that initial round of deportations as it was in progress. Two flights carrying alleged members of Tren de Aragua and other deportees took off while a judge in Washington was holding a hearing March 15 about the legality of the move.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to bring the Alien Enemies Act deportees back to the U.S., by turning the planes around in mid-air if necessary. Nevertheless, the planes continued on. Video released later by the Salvadoran government showed the men being frog-marched in chains into a high-security anti-terrorism prison known as CECOT.

Boasberg is now considering whether to hold formal contempt-of-court proceedings over the episode.

Since that initial round of deportations, courts have blocked any further removals under the Alien Enemies Act. And the Supreme Court has now weighed in several times.

In its first ruling on the matter, on April 7, the court made clear that those designated as “alien enemies” have the right to a meaningful opportunity to challenge that designation in court.

The justices reiterated that mandate Friday but declined to specify now much notice is required for people designated alien enemies. Lower court judges who have ruled on the issue have required at least two weeks’ notice. The Trump administration argued in court papers that 12 to 24 hours is sufficient.

The main opinion issued by the court Friday was labeled “per curiam” — a term meaning that it was issued by the court as a body, rather than any individual justice. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion concurring in the decision. He wrote that he’d prefer to have the Supreme Court dig into the legality of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act invocation right away, without waiting for the issue to be hashed out by lower courts.

The court’s main opinion, meanwhile, urged lower courts to “address AEA cases expeditiously.”

Alito said in his dissent, joined by Thomas, that the high court lacked jurisdiction to handle the case now and that the judge in Texas who did not immediately block the deportations acted “in an entirely reasonable manner.”