The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a major blow to the Trump administration’s attempt to use a centuries-old law for fast-track deportations of Venezuelan detainees.

In a 7-2 decision issued on May 16, the high court blocked the federal government from deporting a group of Venezuelan men, arguing that the timeline and process violated constitutional protections, as Law & Crime reports.

The case stems from an effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to invoke the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a wartime statute enacted in 1798, to justify accelerated deportations of foreign nationals suspected of gang involvement during peacetime. Specifically, the detainees -- held in the Northern District of Texas -- were accused of having ties to Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that giving the detainees minimal notice and no clear path to contest deportations was insufficient. The justices extended a temporary injunction they first issued a month earlier, halting deportations until further legal review.

Court highlights due process shortcomings

In its unsigned per curiam ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that the government’s actions failed to satisfy constitutional standards. The justices criticized the administration's practice of providing only about 24 hours’ notice, with no explanation of how detainees could exercise their legal rights.

“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,” the opinion said. The Court effectively blocked the use of the AEA as grounds for immediate removal of the men without deeper judicial review.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, with Alito authoring a 14-page opinion that accused the Court of acting too soon and overreaching its role in the case.

Alito slams outcome

Justice Alito argued the Supreme Court should not have intervened before the lower courts had completed their review. He wrote that the Court’s decision to take on the case now was “unwarranted” and an example of straying from normal judicial procedure.

In his dissent, Alito disputed the Court’s portrayal of the case timeline, particularly events between April 17 and April 19, when attorneys for the detainees sought emergency relief from U.S. District Judge James Hendrix. The lawyers first called the judge after hours on April 17 and were told to follow standard submission processes.

They filed a renewed motion for a temporary restraining order just after midnight on April 18. According to Alito, they were aware that the DOJ would have a full day to respond. He took issue with their subsequent emergency motion later that day demanding a decision within 42 minutes, warning they would appeal if no immediate action was taken.

Dissent cites departure from norms

Alito was sharply critical of this approach. He described the attorneys’ demand for rapid court action as a break from established legal traditions, calling it “a very stark departure from what is usually regarded as acceptable practice.”

He defended Judge Hendrix, quoting from the record to assert that the judge was acting with care and urgency. Hendrix was, according to Alito, “working with utmost diligence to resolve important and complicated issues [presented by the motion] as quickly as possible.”

Alito maintained that the district judge responded “in an entirely reasonable manner” and should be commended rather than criticized. He also cited Department of Justice assurances that deportations would not occur before the pending habeas corpus petitions from the detainees were resolved.

Concerns raised over evidence, jurisdiction

Further in his dissent, Alito cautioned that the Court may have overstepped its jurisdiction. He said the justices may have reviewed new documents not yet before the district court at the time of its consideration.

He emphasized that only questions related to interim relief had been addressed in the lower courts up to that point. If the Supreme Court had in fact ruled on broader legal issues, Alito declared, the decision was “doubly extraordinary.”

“It has plucked a case from a district court and decided important issues in the first instance,” Alito wrote. “To my eyes, that looks far too much like an expansion of our original jurisdiction.”

Broader impact on enforcement expected

The ruling marks a major pause in the Trump administration’s effort to use long-dormant statutory powers during peacetime for immigration enforcement. The Alien Enemies Act, originally designed for times of declared war, had rarely been used in modern deportation cases.

The Court’s affirmation of due process rights for non-citizens could affect future policy measures that seek to expedite deportations in the name of national security, especially during non-war periods. The decision reinforces constitutional safeguards even for foreign nationals accused of criminal or gang affiliations.

As litigation continues, the ruling ensures that these Venezuelan men cannot be immediately removed without further judicial scrutiny. Challenges to the scope and use of the AEA under different presidential administrations are likely to persist.