Salvadoran police officers escort alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua recently deported by the U.S. government to be imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison, as part of an agreement with the Salvadoran government, in Tecoluca, El Salvador, in this handout image obtained March 16, 2025.
Secretaria de Prensa de la Presidencia | Via Reuters
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the order of a federal judge who had blocked the removal of alleged members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to El Salvador without any legal process under the Alien Enemies Act.
The 5-4 ruling by the high court essentially clears the path for the Trump administration to resume deportations under the rarely used wartime law, so long as detainees are given due process. That means they must be given time to challenge their detention and make the administration prove the legality of their confinement.
“AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs,” the court wrote.
The decision lifts orders issued by Washington-based U.S. District Judge James , who had blocked the move on March 15, while litigation continues. The original lawsuit was filed by five Venezuelans, with Boasberg provisionally certifying it as a class action that applies to all Venezuelans in U.S. custody who are not U.S. citizens.
So far, Boasberg had only issued a temporary restraining order. He had also scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to decide whether to impose a longer-term preliminary injunction.
James Boasberg, incoming chief judge of the US District Court, in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, March 13, 2023.
Valerie Plesch | Bloomberg | Getty Images
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spoke to the historic nature of Monday’s ruling being made before Boasberg even held a hearing on a preliminary injunction in the matter.
“I lament that the Court appears to have embarked on a new era of procedural variability, and that it has done so in such a casual, inequitable, and, in my view, inappropriate manner,” Jackson wrote.
“With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it,” she added.
The government previously indicated in court that if Boasberg’s order was lifted, it would immediately begin deportations. On March 26, a federal appeals court voted 2-1 to decline an earlier request to block Boasberg’s decision.
The fast-moving case concerns Trump’s aggressive and unprecedented use of presidential power in invoking an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act that has only ever been used when the country is at war.
“This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country,” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in her request. “The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the president.”
The Trump administration announced in February that it had determined that Tren de Aragua was a terrorist organization and that its members had infiltrated the United States. The administration, in a move that has been contested, says that the group is effectively an arm of the Venezuelan government, which is led by President Nicolas Maduro.
Trump then invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which can only be used when there are “invasions of predatory incursions.”
By making those findings, the Trump administration concluded that Tren de Aragua members could be immediately detained and deported without an opportunity for judges to determine whether the Alien Enemies Act applied or whether the people involved were even members of the gang. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say the government’s points-based method for identifying whether people are members is seriously flawed, relying in part on whether they have tattoos, leading in some cases to non-gang members being targeted.
The administration has argued that the Alien Enemies Act gives the president almost unfettered power to remove designated immigrants at short notice despite the constitutional protection of due process.
A key issue in the case therefore is whether courts have any role to play in assessing whether the law is being lawfully applied.
The government argues that the only way detainees can challenge potential deportation is to file a separate habeas corpus claim in the jurisdiction where they are held.
The Venezuelan plaintiffs argued in their own filing that the implications of the government’s argument are “staggering” because it could allow officials to target disfavored immigrant groups on a whim.
A decision for the government would “allow the government to immediately begin whisking away anyone else it unilaterally declares to be a member of a criminal gang to a brutal foreign prison,” they said.
They also noted that Boasberg’s decision did not require any currently detained immigrants to be released or prevent deportations under different legal authorities. In fact, the Trump administration has continued to deport other immigrants to El Salvador.
Boasberg’s intervention prompted a barrage of hostile commentary from Trump and his allies, with the president and others calling for the long-time jurist to be impeached. That prompted a swift rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Concerns were also raised about whether the administration had violated a verbal order from Boasberg in court that planes carrying alleged gang members turn around and return to the United States. Two flights subsequently landed in Honduras and El Salvador.
Until Trump’s announcement, the Alien Enemies Act had only ever been invoked during three major wars: the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.
