Friday was a huge day at the Supreme Court. Specifically, they permanently granted Venezuelan nationals the order they had sought to block their removal from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). This decision comes as the Trump administration invoked the AEA in mid-April, alleging that the detainees were associated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which President Donald Trump described as “perpetrating an invasion chargeable with actual hostility against the United States.”
The Supreme Court made their decision by a 7-2 margin. It did not find out whether or not the AEA was properly implemented. By not giving the detainees enough time, the Trump administration broke the law. They were missing the crucial resources to mount an effective challenge to their deportations. The court noted that the detainees were given notice of their removal just one day in advance. It found this window not enough time for them to effectively waive their due process rights.
The ruling was unequivocal on that score – the interests of Venezuelan nationals should be given tremendous weight. This is an encouraging sign that they are aware of their potential vulnerability. The court further stated, “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.”
Simultaneously, the Supreme Court barred the removal of the men pending a new decision from a lower federal appellate court. This decision underscores the normative implications of the legal regime that allows noncitizens to be deported on the basis of national security assertions.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court balanced national security interests with constitutional rights, asserting, “We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution.” The court called for lower courts to expedite cases involving the AEA, stating, “In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously.”
The dissenting opinions were authored by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Justice Alito spoke up because what has been called “inaction” on lower court behavior is creating a major chilling effect. He believed this portrait was unfair.
This situation should not be happening – right now, it is. He was wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador. The government further contends it cannot “ensure” Garcia’s “safe return,” raising a second complication in this puzzling case upon which we first wrote here.
Beyond these specific individual rulings, this decision has huge implications. It’s a moving and powerful story, but it raises big questions about the intersection of immigration policy and national security. The Supreme Court’s recent decision reinforces the need for heightened scrutiny for violations of due process rights. This is particularly important in cases that touch on national safety and security.