The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a legal victory on Monday, allowing President Donald Trump to resume deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, with some limitations that will likely lead to another lawsuit in a different federal court.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices lifted U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s temporary restraining order that had blocked Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 statute historically reserved for wartime threats. Trump used the law in March to authorize the rapid deportation of members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. J.G.G. marks a clear win for Trump, it stops short of giving him everything he wanted. The justices did not decide whether the AEA actually authorizes Trump to carry out deportations, a question that might not get answered until potentially a similar challenge makes its way back to the nine justices in a more developed case.
How did the justices decide their 5-4 ruling?
The majority made clear that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act” and the “notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in some manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief.” However, the majority also found that because the detainees “are confined in Texas,” the Washington D.C. federal court where the lawsuit was filed was “improper.”
“As a result, the government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action,” according to the majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch — while Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the three Democratic-appointed justices in a dissent.
In a concurring opinion written by Kavanaugh, he emphasized that habeas corpus has long been the proper legal avenue for detainees facing transfer or removal, citing precedent from wartime and Guantánamo cases.
The majority’s decision means immigration officials can move forward with removals so long as detainees are given “reasonable” notice and a chance to challenge their deportation through habeas petitions — just not under the Administrative Procedures Act, or APA, which allows plaintiffs to bring suits if they believe an agency’s decision is unlawful or arbitrary. They also held that anyone targeted under the law must first receive notice and a chance to contest their removal, a position that the Trump administration has agreed with in court filings.
The government “expressly agrees that ‘TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review,’” the high court noted in its decision.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Barrett, argued that APA should remain a viable action for noncitizens to bring in a dissent.
“Indeed, in the mid-20th century, this Court repeatedly said that habeas and APA actions were both available to noncitizens challenging their deportation orders,” Sotomayor wrote.
Still, the decision is a major victory for Trump and a setback for anyone his administration seeks to deport. Crucially, it lifted a broad order by Boasberg that had paused all deportations under the AEA. Those removals can now move forward.
Trump officials praise ruling, demand Boasberg ‘dismiss’ case
Trump administration officials praised the high court’s decision, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claiming that “Trump was proven RIGHT once again!” in a statement. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the decision a “landmark victory for the rule of law.”
As of Monday evening, Boasberg still listed a hearing planned for Tuesday afternoon on whether to impose a longer-term preliminary injunction. It is not immediately clear whether the Supreme Court’s decision will call off that hearing.
In a court filing on Boasberg’s docket submitted late Monday, Bondi insisted that Boasberg deny the plaintiffs’ pending motion for a preliminary injunction, and that the case be “dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Boasberg is also still weighing whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating his first restraining order, which he issued on March 15. the day of the initial Venezuelan gang flights to El Salvador. Attorney Phil Holloway posted to X Monday evening that it is likely the judge could still issue a decision on that matter, even if the case is no longer in his jurisdiction.
The ruling is seen as vindicating to Boasberg’s top critics
Trump has railed against Boasberg, calling for his impeachment and labeling him a “Radical Left Lunatic.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Boasberg’s order last week after hearing sharp exchanges between the court and DOJ attorneys.
Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman criticized the American Civil Liberties Union, who brought the case, for a “clear” exercise in egregious forum or “judge shopping,” the notion where litigants seek venues that could be more favorable to their causes.
First, this was a case of clear forum shopping by the ACLU and other groups. The aliens were known to be detained in Texas. The obvious venue to file suit was in Texas,” Blackman said in a post for Reason’s “Volokh Conspiracy” blog. “The ACLU determined (rationally) that the Fifth Circuit would not be a favorable forum. Therefore, they took a risk and sought emergency relief in the D.C. Circuit on a Saturday. Their decision backfired. Now, venue will lie in Texas.”
The ruling came shortly after Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday afternoon temporarily stayed a lower court’s order for the Trump administration to return a man from El Salvador to Maryland after he was deported last month, a move that marked another brief victory for Trump.
The ACLU also declares a partial ‘victory’
The ACLU brought this challenge on behalf of a handful of Venezuelan men who argued the president overstepped his powers when he designated them as members of a Venezuelan gang and used the Alien Enemies Act to deport them. They noted that the Alien Enemies Act has previously been used only during declared wars, including World War II, to justify the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals.
Boasberg had blocked the deportations last month, but the Trump administration allowed two planes to proceed to El Salvador, where 238 Venezuelans were handed over to be held in the country’s “Terrorism Confinement Center.”
DOJ ASKS SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN HOLD ON ALIEN ENEMIES ACT DEPORTATIONS
Meanwhile, the ACLU called the details of the ruling that specified migrants are entitled to challenge the government’s claim that they are gang members “a huge victory.”
“We are disappointed that we will need to start the court process over again in a different venue but the critical point is that the Supreme Court said individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act,” lead ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement.
