Supreme Court Backs Trump on Wartime Deportations—But Adds a Twist
In a controversial yet impactful decision, the Supreme Court on Monday handed the Trump administration a narrow victory in its push to deport individuals accused of gang affiliations—this time, invoking a law that dates back to George Washington's presidency. But it wasn’t a clean sweep.
Let’s break this down.
🧨 The Bombshell: Wartime Powers Revived
The Trump administration leaned on a little-known, centuries-old statute called the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, originally enacted during rising tensions with France. Yes, you read that right—1798. That law allows the president, during times of war or invasion, to order the arrest and removal of nationals from a "hostile" foreign country.
This law was previously used during:
-
The War of 1812
-
World War I
-
World War II
But Trump became the first president in modern memory to use it outside of a declared war. In March, he issued a surprise proclamation declaring that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was conducting irregular warfare and acting as a hostile force against the United States. On that basis, over 200 Venezuelan men were lined up for swift deportation.
✈️ The Rapid Deportations—and the Tattoo Test
The administration’s actions were stunning in speed and secrecy. Three planeloads of detainees were whisked from Texas to El Salvador with very little notice. Their common trait? Many had tattoos that “suggested” they might be members of the gang.
Some of those deported did have final orders of removal under standard immigration law. But more than 100 others were expelled purely under wartime powers, not immigration protocols.
These deportations were so swift that many detainees barely had time to understand what was happening—let alone challenge it.
⚖️ What Did the Court Say?
By a close 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to continue using wartime powers to deport detainees, but with a caveat.
🧷 The detainees still have the right to challenge their deportation—just not from any courtroom they want.
The ruling emphasized that detainees can only appeal in the jurisdiction where they are physically held, which in this case is south Texas—not Washington, D.C., where some judges had started blocking the deportations.
The court’s unsigned majority opinion made it clear:
“Detainees subject to removal orders under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal... The only question is which court will resolve that challenge.”
In other words, the power grab wasn’t totally unchecked—but federal judges in D.C. don’t get to oversee it anymore.
👥 Who Voted Which Way?
Here’s the breakdown of the 5-4 split:
Majority (For limiting judicial oversight):
-
Chief Justice John Roberts
-
Justice Clarence Thomas
-
Justice Samuel Alito
-
Justice Neil Gorsuch
-
Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Dissent (Against the administration's tactics):
-
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
-
Justice Elena Kagan
-
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
-
Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Yes, you read that right. Justice Barrett joined the liberal justices on this one—a rare occurrence that speaks volumes.
🔥 The Dissent: “A Threat to the Rule of Law”
Justice Sotomayor didn't hold back. She blasted the decision in a strongly worded dissent:
“The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law... That a majority of this Court now rewards the government for its behavior... is indefensible.”
She called the administration's legal maneuvering “reckless” and suggested the Court was letting executive overreach slide under the radar.
Justice Jackson chimed in too, slamming the majority for making such a crucial decision without full briefing or arguments. She called the Court’s approach:
“Fly-by-night... not only misguided, but also dangerous.”
⚖️ Backstory: The Legal Clash
So how did we get here?
Back in March, as the deportations ramped up, a federal judge in Washington—Judge James Boasberg—intervened. The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of five men who said they were wrongly accused of gang affiliation and feared being thrown into brutal prisons in El Salvador.
Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order to pause the deportations—but it came too late. By the time it was issued, three full planes had already taken off.
Still, his order protected the remaining detainees and cast doubt on whether the government’s actions were legal under the Alien Enemies Act.
🧑⚖️ Then Came the Supreme Court
The Trump administration appealed, arguing that federal judges had no right to interfere in national security operations. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote:
“This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country—the President...or the Judiciary.”
Meanwhile, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt argued that many of the men were wrongly deported based solely on tattoos, not criminal evidence. He urged the Court to keep the restraining order in place, warning:
“The government could begin whisking away anyone it unilaterally declares to be a gang member to a brutal foreign prison.”
🚨 Why This Matters
-
Reviving an ancient wartime law to carry out domestic deportations sets a precedent that could be used more broadly.
-
Tattoos as evidence? That opens a disturbing door to profiling and misidentification.
-
The narrow ruling technically supports the detainees’ right to appeal—but only in very specific courts, which may limit their actual access to justice.
-
Presidential powers just got a big boost, especially in cases involving "national security."
This wasn’t just about immigration—it was about how far a president can go in using old wartime powers in modern contexts. And the Court sent a clear message: you can use those powers, but at least give people a chance to push back—just not in any court they choose.
📌 The Takeaway
This Supreme Court ruling shows just how thin the line can be between protecting national security and preserving civil liberties.
✅ The Trump administration scored a win—but not without pushback.
❌ Hundreds were deported in near silence—some possibly innocent.
⚖️ The judicial system is still grappling with how to balance security and due process.
And perhaps most importantly:
We're seeing how old laws can be dusted off and used in brand new—and sometimes dangerous—ways.
Login