Supreme Court Halts Deportations Under 1798 Law
The U.S. Supreme Court has maintained its block on President Donald Trump’s efforts to deport Venezuelan migrants using a 1798 law traditionally applied only during wartime. The justices criticized the administration for attempting to carry out deportations without providing adequate due process to the migrants.
In a brief, unsigned opinion, the Court granted a request by civil liberties attorneys to keep the deportation halt in place. This decision follows an earlier order issued on April 19, which temporarily stopped the removal of several migrants detained in Texas.
Lawyers representing the migrants had urged the Supreme Court to intervene after reports emerged that the administration planned to deport individuals without proper notification or a chance to challenge their removal. The Court agreed that such short notice failed to meet legal standards. “Under these circumstances, 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 ruling stated.
Legal Challenges and Dissenting Opinions
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing the Supreme Court should not step in at this stage and questioning the legality of granting relief to the detainees as a group. Meanwhile, the Court clarified that the administration could still pursue deportations under other U.S. immigration laws.
This case marks the second time the Supreme Court has addressed President Trump’s actions targeting Venezuelan migrants, raising concerns about the administration’s willingness to follow judicial limits.
Migrants Denied Judicial Review
The migrants, held at a detention center in Texas, reportedly were not given the chance to seek judicial review before being transferred to a prison in El Salvador. This lack of opportunity violated a previous Supreme Court order requiring detainees receive notice in a timely and understandable manner to challenge their removal.
On April 7, the Court set boundaries on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, requiring adequate notice and a reasonable timeframe for detainees to contest their removal. The migrants’ interests were deemed “particularly weighty,” considering the administration’s separate claim that a Salvadoran man wrongfully deported to El Salvador could not be returned to the United States.
Background and Controversy Surrounding the Alien Enemies Act
The administration accuses the migrants of belonging to Tren de Aragua, a criminal gang linked to Venezuelan prisons and designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department. President Trump has used the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite their deportations.
However, relatives and legal representatives of the deported Venezuelans deny these claims and insist the migrants were never allowed to contest allegations of gang membership.
The Alien Enemies Act empowers the president to deport, detain, or restrict individuals loyal to foreign powers who may threaten national security during wartime. The last known use of this law was during World War II when people of Japanese, German, and Italian descent were interned and deported.
Government and Legal Responses
The Justice Department argued the migrants’ Supreme Court appeal was premature, claiming they bypassed lower courts and had received adequate notice and time to seek judicial review. However, civil rights lawyers pointed out that a lower court failed to act despite evidence the migrants were about to be removed, likely leading to their deportation if the Supreme Court had not intervened.
The migrants were placed on buses leaving the Texas detention center but were turned back, presumably due to the Supreme Court filing.
Deportations to El Salvador and Due Process Concerns
The Trump administration has deported migrants to El Salvador, where they are detained in a high-security anti-terrorism prison under a $6 million agreement with the Salvadoran government.
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the government’s practice of moving large numbers of detainees between judicial districts while providing only English-language notices less than 24 hours before removal. They stressed this approach fails to meet the Court’s requirement that notices allow migrants to seek habeas corpus review, a fundamental legal right to challenge unlawful detention.
Habeas corpus is a cornerstone of U.S. law that protects detainees from illegal imprisonment.
For more updates on U.S. Supreme Court rulings and immigration policy, visit Filipinokami.com.