After SCOTUS Ruling, NY Judge Thwarts Trump’s Latest Attempt at Deportations Under AEA

A series of legal battles continues to unfold over the U.S. government’s decision to deport Venezuelan migrants under an 18th-century wartime law. While the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting such deportations, a federal judge in New York issued a separate TRO halting the removal of certain Venezuelan migrants, fueling a contentious legal fight over the use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798.

Supreme Court’s Ruling and Legal Jurisdiction

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a TRO that had blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from deporting Venezuelan nationals under the AEA. The ruling indicated that the case would now be adjudicated in Texas, a state under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit, widely considered one of the most conservative federal circuits. This decision allows the administration to continue deportation efforts but remains contingent on legal challenges. However, just one day after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class-action lawsuit against the administration, challenging the deportations. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York responded by issuing a separate TRO, specifically halting the deportations of two Venezuelan nationals currently detained in New York. The TRO does not extend nationwide but only applies to individuals in the Southern District of New York.

The ACLU Lawsuit and Claims of Due Process Violations

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two unnamed Venezuelan nationals, alleges that the government is resuming deportations without due process or judicial review, following the Supreme Court’s decision. The complaint details how the government seeks to deport the plaintiffs in secret, to a prison in El Salvador known for its abusive conditions. The plaintiffs argue that their removal without due process would subject them to severe mistreatment and potentially life imprisonment.

The ACLU’s lawsuit claims that the use of the AEA to deport Venezuelan nationals is unlawful, as it violates basic principles of due process. The plaintiffs argue that the government is unjustly labeling them as members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) without providing any opportunity for contesting this designation. They also contend that, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling requiring notice and due process, the administration has indicated it will proceed with deportations immediately upon lifting the injunction.

Trump’s Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act

In March 2025, Trump became the first U.S. president since World War II to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, citing the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) as an entity responsible for a “predatory incursion” against the United States. Under the AEA, the president can summarily remove nationals of a hostile nation during wartime, or those suspected of threatening U.S. territory. The Trump administration’s claim that TdA members are part of a “hybrid criminal state” led to the swift deportation of more than 100 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador without judicial review.

In response, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., temporarily halted the use of the AEA, arguing that the deportations violated due process. After a series of legal motions and hearings, the Supreme Court ruled that the case should be filed as individual habeas corpus petitions in Texas, rather than as a class-action lawsuit. The Court also clarified that future deportations under the AEA must provide notice and an opportunity for individuals to contest their removals.

Ongoing Legal and Political Challenges

The ACLU’s case challenges the legality of using the AEA to deport Venezuelan nationals, given that the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela and the country has not launched any direct attacks on U.S. territory. Critics argue that the law’s invocation is an overreach of wartime powers. With the legal battles ongoing, the issue of deportations under the AEA remains a contentious topic, involving significant questions about the scope of presidential powers, immigration rights, and due process for migrants.