The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that suspected Venezuelan gang members must be given more notice before deportation under an 18th-century law invoked by former President Donald Trump.

The Court’s 7-2 decision blocks the immediate removal of the migrants while a legal challenge supported by the American Civil Liberties Union continues, much to the frustration of Trump, as Breitbart reports.

The ruling concerns Venezuelan nationals the Trump administration believes are affiliated with Tren de Aragua, a gang designated by Trump as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in March. Using the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act, Trump issued a proclamation ordering the removal of non-lawful Venezuelan immigrants allegedly linked to the gang, claiming they are involved in hostile activities targeting the U.S.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of these detained individuals, contesting both the use of the Alien Enemies Act and the minimal notice given before deportation proceedings. According to the suit, the plaintiffs—held in Texas—were informed of their removals less than 24 hours in advance and were not given adequate instructions on how to challenge the orders in court.

Supreme Court emphasizes required notice

The high court did not rule on the legality of deporting alleged Tren de Aragua members under the Alien Enemies Act but focused instead on the government's failure to provide sufficient due process. Writing for the majority, the justices described the prior notice as lacking in critical legal information and too brief to be considered adequate.

“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights… does not pass muster,” the majority opinion stated. Though the Court did not dismantle the Trump administration’s authority to utilize the act, it emphasized the need to uphold procedural protections.

As part of the ruling, the Court issued temporary injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction while lower courts continue to evaluate the legality of the notices. The decision halts the imminent deportations, at least for now, without precluding other legal avenues under which authorities might act.

Alien Enemies Act invocation sparks legal scrutiny

Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798, began in March with a presidential proclamation that labeled Tren de Aragua a national security threat. The declaration accused the gang of working either directly or indirectly with Venezuela’s Maduro regime to conduct hostile operations within U.S. borders.

The proclamation specified that any Venezuelan citizen over 14 years old, not legally residing in the United States, and linked to the gang, would be subject to detention and removal. Trump said these individuals had “unlawfully infiltrated” the country, comparing their behavior to an act of irregular warfare.

Judge Stephanie Haines of the District Court initially upheld Trump’s invocation of the AEA, ruling that the administration’s actions aligned with the original intent of the statute, which was passed during tense times with France over two centuries ago.

Justices express sharp divisions on Court’s role

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority’s decision, criticizing the Court’s involvement at this stage of litigation. Alito stated the Court “lacks jurisdiction” to issue any relief, asserting that the legal requirements for a temporary injunction had not been met by the plaintiffs.

“First and most important, we lack jurisdiction and therefore have no authority to issue any relief,” Alito wrote, supported by Thomas. Alito further argued that even if jurisdiction existed, the applicants’ case failed to meet the required legal standards for temporary protection.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also dissented in part, proposing a different approach that bypassed waiting for a lower court. Kavanaugh wanted the Supreme Court to resolve the matter quickly and decisively, suggesting the Court fast-track the case and directly hear arguments.

Future of deportations remains uncertain

Though the Supreme Court granted temporary relief, it clarified that the administration could still act under different statutory authorities unrelated to the Alien Enemies Act. The ruling emphasized that the Court was addressing only the adequacy of the notice provided so far.

“We decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18,” wrote the majority, explaining that the ruling ensures jurisdictional continuity while the issue is adjudicated further.

This development adds to the growing list of legal challenges to Trump's application of the Alien Enemies Act. Since the March proclamation, multiple lawsuits have been filed questioning whether the law can rightfully be applied in this context and whether the administrative process meets constitutional standards.

ACLU scores legal win as stakes remain high

The ACLU, which represents the detainees, viewed the ruling as a favorable outcome, reinforcing the argument that suspected individuals -- even if accused of gang affiliation -- must receive basic procedural protections. For the organization, Friday’s decision represents a chance to more fully contest the broader use of the AEA for mass deportation.

Legal experts note that the ruling doesn't invalidate the government's claims about Tren de Aragua but signals caution about bypassing due process for national security concerns. It underscores the tension between immigration enforcement and constitutional rights, especially when executive power intersects with longstanding but rarely used laws.

The Supreme Court previously overturned a contradictory ruling from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who had temporarily blocked deportations under the AEA. That move allowed the Trump administration to proceed until Friday’s new pause was implemented.