The 7-2 decision by the top court is another setback to President Donald Trump’s attempts to swiftly expel alleged Tren de Aragua gang members using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
Trump, who campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, reacted angrily to the court order.
“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he posted on Truth Social.
Trump invoked the AEA, which was last used to round up Japanese-Americans during World War II, in March to deport a first group of alleged Tren de Aragua members to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process.
Attorneys for several of the deported Venezuelans have said their clients were not Tren de Aragua members, had committed no crimes and were targeted largely on the basis of their tattoos.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court intervened on April 19 to temporarily block further deportations of undocumented Venezuelan migrants, saying they must be afforded due process.
In Friday’s unsigned order, the court paused plans to deport another group of detainees held in Texas, saying they were not being given enough time to mount a meaningful legal challenge to their removal.
“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 justices said.
Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
The justices also noted that a Salvadoran man had been deported to El Salvador “in error” along with the alleged Tren de Aragua members in March and the Trump administration has claimed “it is unable to provide for [his] return.”
The justices stressed they were not deciding whether Trump could legally use the AEA to deport undocumented migrants, and they ordered a lower court to “expeditiously” examine the question.
“To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given,” they said.
“We did not on April 19 – and do not now – address the underlying merits of the parties’ claims regarding the legality of removals under the AEA.
“We recognize the significance of the government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution,” they said. (AFP)
