The Justice Department has requested that the Supreme Court overturn a judge’s ruling that temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s expedited deportation policy for certain immigrants without a hearing.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the case highlights a fundamental question: whether immigration policy should be determined by the president or the judiciary. She maintained that the Constitution clearly grants this authority to the president, emphasizing that national security concerns require swift executive action.
Skye Perryman, president of the Democracy Forward Foundation, criticized the administration’s approach, claiming it seeks judicial approval for policies that violate legal protections.
Trump’s Use of the Alien Enemies Act
The administration is relying on the Alien Enemies Act, a law from 1798 that grants the president broad authority to detain and deport noncitizens from countries at war with the U.S. Trump’s team argues that this applies to members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), which has been targeted for deportation. However, a court ruling found that an invasion, as defined by law, must originate from a foreign government rather than a criminal organization.
Legal Challenge and Court Rulings
Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had initially blocked deportation flights, ruling that individuals accused of gang affiliation deserved a hearing before removal. The judge also sought clarification on whether the administration had violated his orders by proceeding with deportation flights on March 15.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and other government lawyers countered that Trump has the authority to designate the gang as a foreign terrorist organization and deport suspected members without individual hearings. They refused to disclose details about deportation flights, arguing that such information could compromise national security.
Supreme Court Review and National Implications
The administration has asked the Supreme Court to reverse Boasberg’s order and allow deportations to continue while the case is being considered. Harris warned that delaying deportations could undermine diplomatic negotiations and national security efforts to remove TdA members before their influence grows.
The Supreme Court has ordered legal representatives for deported Venezuelans to respond to the government’s request. Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, who are representing the affected individuals, plan to argue against immediate deportations, insisting that due process must be upheld.
Political and Judicial Responses
This case has become a major test of Trump’s broader efforts to implement mass deportations without lengthy legal proceedings. Trump has also called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg, accusing him of obstructing immigration enforcement.
In response, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement defending judicial independence, noting that impeachment is not an appropriate reaction to legal disagreements and that the appellate process exists for such disputes.
Historical Context of the Alien Enemies Act
The Alien Enemies Act, originally enacted during wartime, has typically been used against citizens of enemy nations. The administration contends that the law applies to members of TdA due to their alleged criminal activities and perceived threat to national security. However, courts have thus far ruled that the gang does not qualify as a foreign government, making the administration’s use of the law controversial.
As legal battles continue, the Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications for presidential authority, immigration enforcement, and due process rights.
