President Donald Trump’s administration was ready to execute the deportation of numerous Venezuelan migrants detained in Texas, utilizing a 1798 law that has historically been applied only during wartime and without judicial oversight, contrary to previous Supreme Court rulings, attorneys informed the justices on Monday.
Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the migrants, urged the Supreme Court in a written submission to uphold its injunction against deportations to a prison in El Salvador. The ACLU’s document indicated that officials had failed to provide the migrants with the necessary notice or the chance to challenge their deportations before many were placed on buses bound for the airport.
This filing represents the latest turn in a prominent legal dispute surrounding the Republican president’s immigration policies, which have raised concerns about his administration’s adherence to the constraints established by the highest U.S. court.
The ACLU’s submission emphasized that “whatever due process may entail in this situation, it does not permit the removal of an individual to a potential life sentence without trial, to a facility notorious for torture and other mistreatment, merely 24 hours after delivering an English-only notice (which was not shared with any legal counsel) that fails to inform the individual of their right to seek judicial review, let alone the procedures or timelines for doing so.”
The U.S. government has alleged that the migrants are affiliated with Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization that originated in Venezuelan prisons and has been classified by the Trump administration as a foreign terrorist entity. Trump has invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite their deportation.
This law empowers the president to deport, detain, or impose restrictions on individuals whose primary loyalty lies with a foreign nation and who may present a national security threat during wartime.
On Saturday, the nine-member Supreme Court swiftly intervened, temporarily preventing the administration from deporting the migrants, responding quickly to warnings from their attorneys about imminent removals. Two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, expressed their disagreement with that ruling.
Read more: Trump Tariffs Threaten Wine Supply
On Friday, ACLU attorneys submitted urgent petitions in several courts, including the Supreme Court, after learning that migrants at the Bluebonnet immigration detention center faced an imminent threat of deportation.
On April 7, the Supreme Court imposed restrictions on the deportation process under the Alien Enemies Act, even as the law’s application for this purpose is under legal scrutiny. The justices mandated that detainees be informed “within a reasonable time and in such a manner” that allows them to contest the legality of their deportation.
The Justice Department under Trump argued to the justices that the migrants’ request for relief was premature, claiming they had “improperly bypassed the lower courts before seeking relief from this court.”
In a formal submission, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated that detainees are being given advance notice of their deportations and have sufficient time to submit claims for judicial review.
ACLU attorneys countered this claim, asserting that a lower court judge had failed to act despite evidence indicating that the migrants were being prepared for imminent deportation and “would almost certainly have been removed” if the Supreme Court had not intervened.
The migrants were placed on buses departing from the Bluebonnet facility, only to be turned back later “presumably due to the applicants’ filing” with the Supreme Court, according to the lawyers.
The administration has already deported over 200 men from Venezuela and El Salvador, whom it identifies as gang members, to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador.
In their filing on Monday, ACLU lawyers urged that as the justices consider whether to uphold the temporary halt on deportations, they should also clarify that the administration’s actions contradict the April 7 ruling and provide guidance on the necessary measures to ensure adequate notice for the migrants.
