In a striking development captured by handout images dated March 16, 2025, Salvadoran police, in collaboration with U.S. officials, have detained members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center. This marks a pivotal moment in a series of events set in motion by a Supreme Court decision.
On Monday, the Supreme Court nullified a previous block by a federal judge that halted the deportation of Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador without standard legal procedures, citing the Alien Enemies Act. The court’s narrow 5-4 decision grants the Trump administration leeway to proceed with deportations under this seldom-invoked wartime statute, provided due process is observed. This stipulates that detainees must be informed in a timely manner, allowing them the opportunity to contest their detention and for the administration to justify their confinement.
The court’s order effectively overrides decisions by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who initially suspended the deportation on March 15. Boasberg had temporarily certified the lawsuit, initiated by five Venezuelans, as a class action applicable to all Venezuelans in U.S. custody lacking citizenship. Until now, Boasberg’s intervention had been limited to a temporary restraining order, with arguments scheduled for extending this measure set for Tuesday.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, voicing concerns over the abrupt nature of the Supreme Court’s ruling before scheduled hearings could take place. She cautioned against the emergence of procedural inconsistencies within the court, stressing that the current ruling echoes past missteps, potentially with severe consequences.
Indications in court revealed that the government was poised to hasten deportations should Boasberg’s constraints be lifted. On March 26, appeals court judges voted 2-1 against a request to sustain Boasberg’s block.
This legal saga underscores Trump’s assertive, controversial use of presidential authority, reviving the Alien Enemies Act, a relic typically reserved for wartime. As acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris noted, the crux of the legal battle centers on who holds sway in national security operations, with the Constitution favoring presidential prerogative.
The administration has branded the Tren de Aragua as a terrorist faction within the U.S., ostensibly linked to Venezuela’s government under President Nicolas Maduro. This characterization, disputed by some, laid the groundwork for invoking the Alien Enemies Act, claiming predatory intrusions. Consequently, it rationalized immediate detainment and deportation of alleged gang members, bypassing judiciary oversight on the Act’s relevance or verifying gang affiliation. Critics argue the administration’s profiling method is inadequate, often misidentifying individuals as gang members based on superficial criteria like tattoos.
A pivotal aspect of this case is delineating the judiciary’s role in ensuring the lawful application of this contentious law. The government maintains that challenges to potential deportations should be addressed through individual habeas corpus filings in their respective jurisdictions.
The Venezuelan plaintiffs argued the stakes are high, suggesting that the government’s stance could lead to arbitrary targeting of immigrant groups. They emphasized that Boasberg’s ruling neither mandated the release of detained immigrants nor restricted deportations under other legal avenues, pointing out ongoing deportations of other individuals to El Salvador.
Judge Boasberg faced criticism from President Trump and allies, who even called for his impeachment, prompting a public defense from Chief Justice John Roberts. There were concerns over possible violations of a verbal order by Boasberg, aimed at recalling flights deporting alleged gang members; nonetheless, two flights reached Honduras and El Salvador.
The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act by Trump is notable, marking its use beyond the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The unfolding legal battle continues to challenge legal norms and presidential powers, spotlighting the precarious balance between national security and individual rights.
