The United States Supreme Court recently blocked former President Donald Trump’s attempt to expedite deportations under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a statute from 1798. Trump used the AEA earlier in March, designating the Tren de Aragua gang a foreign terrorist organization. He told them they were in the process of committing an “invasion of the United States.”
The AEA also gives extraordinary power to the executive branch to fast track deportation for anyone they declare to be a national security threat. To date, at least three federal judges have ruled against Trump. They concluded that his use of the law was wildly inappropriate, using it to hastily deport people who the administration says are Venezuelan gang members. The current challenges underscore the divisive political landscape that characterizes the government’s aggressive immigration enforcement policy. This alarming trend poses grave due process implications for detainees.
In his writing, justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) was very unhappy with the court’s approach. They particularly underscored the importance of providing people with “ample opportunity” to contest their deportations under the AEA. In April, the justices mandated that immigration officials must provide a minimum of 21 days for detainees to respond, contradicting the administration’s claim that 12 hours would suffice.
The court’s recent emergency ruling comes as a big relief. They staged a shutdown, stopping deportations out of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in north Texas. This decision was issued by the Board just shortly after the 4 Venezuelan men connected to a gang have been successful in getting their removal appealable. In an unusual move, three of the justices wrote to personally highlight the detainees’ interests at stake. They announced that the detainees’ circumstances warranted more than expedited removal proceedings.
“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process right to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.” – The Supreme Court
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel in the case, remarked that the court’s decision represents a significant setback for the government’s strategy to fast-track deportations. He noted that, in fact, it issues a very strong and pointed rebuke to the administration’s efforts. He characterized those efforts as a dangerous move to push people into a “Gulag-style prison in El Salvador.”
“The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away under the Alien Enemies Act.” – Lee Gelernt
Following the Supreme Court ruling, Trump went to Truth Social to rage. He stated, “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” This one comment speaks to his larger worldview with respect to immigration enforcement, as it pertains to national security.
Trump’s rhetoric didn’t stop there, because deep down, he knows the system isn’t keeping Americans safe from violent criminals. He lamented that individuals he categorizes as “the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane” are being allowed to remain in the country due to legal processes that he deemed excessively lengthy and costly.
“The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do.” – Donald Trump
The controversy over the AEA isn’t over, as multiple related cases continue to make their way through the courts. A federal judge in Pennsylvania has already endorsed the use of this wartime authority in limited cases. On the flip side, releasing these authorities into the wild of peacetime use has deadly consequences, as critics contend—tellingly, they pose constitutional due process concerns.
“The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.” – Lee Gelernt
Legal experts argue that even when national security concerns need consideration, these cannot take precedence over our Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has reiterated this balance in its rulings, emphasizing that governmental actions in pursuit of security must align with constitutional principles.
“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 Supreme Court