In a dramatic late-night ruling, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants accused of Tren de Aragua gang membership under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
The decision prompted a scathing dissent from Justice Samuel Alito, who criticized both the timing and legal basis of the court’s intervention.
The court directed the administration “not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States” until further notice.
This emergency action came after attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed urgent requests on behalf of Venezuelan migrants held in a Texas detention center.
Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, condemned the court’s actions in a five-page dissent, stating the court had “hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief.”
He particularly objected to the midnight timing, arguing there was no justification for such urgency.
“Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief,” the justices wrote.
Alito further questioned whether the court even had jurisdiction in the matter, noting, “The All Writs Act does not provide an independent grant of jurisdiction.”
In his dissent, Alito cited legal precedent, pointing out that the Act does not expand the court’s authority: “See 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) (permitting writs ‘necessary or appropriate in aid of’ a court’s jurisdiction); Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534-535 (1999) (‘the express terms’ of the All Writs Act ‘confine the power of [a court] to issuing process ‘in aid of’ its existing statutory jurisdiction; the Act does not enlarge that jurisdiction’).”
ABC News reported that the legal battle intensified when ACLU attorneys discovered that immigration officials had distributed notices to Venezuelan detainees at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas.
These documents, titled “Notice and Warrant of Apprehension and Removal under the Alien Enemies Act,” informed recipients they had been “determined to be a member of Tren de Aragua” and were “subject to apprehension, restraint and removal from the United States.”
The notices explicitly stated, “This is not a removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act,” distinguishing this enforcement action from standard deportation proceedings.
The New York Times reported that in response, ACLU attorneys mounted a rapid legal campaign, filing emergency motions in three different courts within a five-hour window.
Their initial request for a temporary restraining order in Federal District Court in Abilene sought protection for all migrants in the Northern District of Texas potentially facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act.
When Judge James Wesley Hendrix failed to act quickly and later rejected their request entirely, the attorneys escalated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans before ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.
Alito criticized this legal maneuvering, stating it was “questionable whether the applicants complied with the general obligation to seek emergency injunctive relief in the District Court before asking for such relief from an appellate court.”
The justice’s frustration was further evident as he noted, “When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief, and we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming. This Court, however, refused to wait.”
The ACLU’s emergency filing requested that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issue a temporary restraining order requiring their clients to receive 30 days’ notice prior to any deportation, Breitbart News reported.
This would allow sufficient time for legal challenges to be mounted and for due process rights to be protected.
Alito concluded his dissent with sharp criticism: “In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order.”
This latest ruling represents a temporary setback for the Trump administration’s deportation efforts, which recently gained momentum after the Supreme Court lifted a previous block in a 5-4 decision.
That earlier ruling had prevented the administration from deporting suspected illegal alien gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.
The ACLU’s emergency actions sought to “preserve the status quo” for their clients, arguing that deportation to El Salvador without due process would cause irreparable harm.
