Trump Administration Appeals to Supreme Court on Alien Enemies Act Deportations

On Friday, March 28, 2025, the Trump administration escalated its legal battle over the use of the Alien Enemies Act by appealing to the Supreme Court. This move comes after lower courts blocked the administration's attempts to swiftly deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang without due process.

Background of the Alien Enemies Act

The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, is a wartime statute that grants the president broad powers to detain or deport non-citizens during times of war or invasion. It was part of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts, a set of laws passed during a period of heightened tensions between the United States and France^[1].

Trump's Invocation of the Act

On March 15, 2025, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to target members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that has expanded its operations into the United States^[2]. The administration argues that the gang's activities constitute an "invasion" of the country, justifying the use of this rarely invoked wartime power^[3].

Initial Deportations and Legal Challenges

Following Trump's executive order, the administration swiftly moved to deport over 200 individuals alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua. These deportees were sent to a high-security facility in El Salvador^[4].

However, this action was met with immediate legal challenges. The American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward filed lawsuits against the Trump administration, arguing that the use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context violates due process rights^[4:1].

Judge Boasberg's Ruling

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order on March 15, halting further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act^[2:1]. In his ruling, Boasberg emphasized that even if Trump's use of the law is legitimate, affected individuals must have a fair opportunity to contest their deportation^[4:2].

Boasberg's order does not completely halt deportations but temporarily limits Trump's ability to expel individuals summarily under this rarely used statute^[5]. The judge noted that the government retains the capability to deport individuals under other legal frameworks^[5:1].

Appeals Court Decision

The Trump administration sought emergency relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn Boasberg's restraining order. However, on March 26, a three-judge panel upheld Boasberg's ruling in a 2-1 decision^[4:3][6].

Judges Karen Henderson and Patricia Millett, in separate opinions, expressed skepticism about the administration's rationale for invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Judge Henderson pointed out that the act has only been applied in contexts of armed conflict with foreign nations, stating, "The Alien Enemies Act enacted by the Fifth Congress contemplated actual conflict with France, a foreign power. War was at the center of the minds of those enacting it."^[6:1]

Supreme Court Appeal

Following the appeals court's decision, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, March 28^[2:2]. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued in the 40-page filing that the dispute "presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security operations in this country — the President, through Article II" of the Constitution, "or the Judiciary," through temporary restraining orders^[2:3].

Harris emphasized the administration's position that the Constitution grants this authority to the President, stating, "The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice."^[2:4]

The Justice Department contends that Judge Boasberg's orders "have contradicted the President's assessments on how to safeguard the country from foreign terrorist entities, potentially jeopardizing fragile international negotiations."^[4:4]

Key Arguments in the Supreme Court Appeal

1. Executive Power: The administration argues that the judiciary is infringing on the President's constitutional authority to make national security decisions^[7].
2. Urgency of National Security: The appeal stresses the immediate threat posed by the Tren de Aragua gang, characterizing it as a "designated foreign terrorist organization"^[7:1].
3. Scope of the Alien Enemies Act: The administration contends that the Act grants the President broad discretion in times of national security threats, even if not during a formally declared war^[1:1].
4. Judicial Overreach: The appeal suggests that lower court judges are improperly second-guessing the President's national security judgments^[8].

Opposition Arguments

Those challenging the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act argue:

1. Due Process Violations: Critics contend that deporting individuals without a hearing violates fundamental due process rights^[4:5].
2. Misapplication of the Act: Opponents argue that the Alien Enemies Act was intended for use during declared wars with foreign nations, not against criminal organizations^[9].
3. Lack of "Invasion": Challengers dispute whether illegal migration and cross-border drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion" under the terms of the Act^[9:1].
4. Non-State Actor: Critics point out that Tren de Aragua, while a criminal organization, is not a "foreign nation or government" as required by the Act^[9:2].

Potential Implications

The Supreme Court's decision on this matter could have far-reaching consequences:

1. Executive Power: A ruling in favor of the administration could significantly expand presidential authority in immigration and national security matters.
2. Due Process: If the Court allows these deportations, it could set a precedent for limiting due process rights for non-citizens accused of gang affiliation.
3. Use of Wartime Powers: The case may clarify the extent to which presidents can invoke wartime statutes during periods of nominal peace.
4. Immigration Enforcement: A favorable ruling for the administration could provide a powerful new tool for rapid deportations of certain groups of immigrants.

Next Steps

The Supreme Court has requested that lawyers for the Venezuelan nationals challenging the administration's efforts respond to the Justice Department's request by April 1^[10]. This tight timeline underscores the urgency of the matter and suggests that the Court may rule on the emergency appeal relatively quickly.

Conclusion

The Trump administration's appeal to the Supreme Court over the use of the Alien Enemies Act represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over executive power, immigration enforcement, and due process rights. As the case progresses, it will likely continue to be a flashpoint in the broader national conversation about the balance between national security concerns and individual rights. The Supreme Court's decision could have lasting implications for presidential authority and the rights of non-citizens in the United States.