In a rare late-night development, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly issued an order that temporarily halts the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan detainees under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a ruling that sparked an immediate and blistering dissent from Justice Samuel Alito.
The unsigned order, released early Saturday morning, advises the White House not to remove any Venezuelans held at Texas’ Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court.” Though brief and procedural in tone, the order carries enormous implications—not just for immigration enforcement, but for the boundaries of presidential power and the Court’s own procedural norms.
The Alien Enemies Act, one of the four Alien and Sedition Acts passed during John Adams’ presidency, allows the federal government to deport non-citizens from nations deemed enemies of the United States during times of conflict. It has been used sparingly in American history, most notably during World War II. The Trump administration revived it this year to expedite deportations of Venezuelan nationals accused of criminal activity or gang affiliations, particularly members of Tren de Aragua, a violent syndicate operating across Latin America.
Critics, led by the ACLU, have challenged these deportations as unconstitutional, citing a lack of due process and concern that individuals may be wrongly deported without adequate judicial review. They filed an emergency appeal after alleging that federal authorities resumed deportations despite previous judicial limitations.
Justice Alito didn’t hold back. In a sharply worded dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, he condemned the Court’s decision as unprecedented and reckless, accusing his colleagues of bypassing basic legal protocols:
“The Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application… and without providing any explanation for its order.”
Alito emphasized that the decision was made “literally in the middle of the night,” questioning the urgency and legality of such a rapid move. He also pointed to an earlier case, Trump v. J.G.G., as precedent the Court appeared to ignore:
“The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J.G.G., and this Court should follow established procedures.”
His concern was not only about the outcome, but about what he framed as a dangerous procedural shortcut, potentially undermining the legitimacy of the Court’s role.
Later that same day, attorneys for the Trump administration fired back with a formal opposition brief. They argued that due process had been provided, noting that detainees were given advance notice and that the government had agreed to delay deportations for any individual who filed a habeas corpus claim:
“This Court should dissolve its current administrative stay and allow the lower courts to address the relevant legal and factual questions in the first instance.”
The administration insists the lower courts are the proper venue for resolving disputes over the Alien Enemies Act’s modern application, particularly for crafting a reliable factual record.
