ACLU Disputes Alien Enemies Act Following Supreme Court’s Decision

Hand holding pen, filling out lawsuit form.

In a legal confrontation over the Alien Enemies Act’s application, the ACLU files a lawsuit following a Supreme Court decision impacting Venezuelan deportations.

Key Takeaways

The ACLU and NYCLU filed an emergency lawsuit to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
The lawsuit challenges a U.S. Supreme Court decision that lifted restrictions on deportations justified by alleged ties to terrorism.
The Alien Enemies Act, a wartime measure, is being repurposed by the Trump administration to address immigration issues.
The Supreme Court ruled that targets for removal must be allowed to challenge their deportations.
The Trump administration sees the ruling as a victory, allowing deportations under the act to proceed.

Legal Action Against Alien Enemies Act

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in collaboration with the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and The Legal Aid Society, has filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s application of the Alien Enemies Act. This emergency lawsuit, lodged in a federal court in New York, seeks to prevent the deportation of two Venezuelan nationals under the act. These individuals are associated with alleged connections to Tren de Aragua, a recognized foreign terrorist group, according to administration claims.

The lawsuit demands that President Trump’s interpretation of the long-standing Alien Enemies Act, enacted during a time of war in 1798, should not apply to peacetime immigration matters. The ACLU contends that this act was manipulated to bypass conventional immigration laws, impacting immigrant rights and due process. The federal court filing is a direct response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, which lifted previous judicial restraining orders, hence enabling the president to utilize the Act freely.

Constitutional Questions

The Supreme Court’s decision represents a pivotal moment in immigration law and its lenient stance towards acts perceived as wartime measures. However, the landmark ruling does allow Venezuelans, or any individuals targeted under this guise, the legal latitude to contest their deportation. They must be afforded adequate notice and opportunity to challenge removal orders, as mandated by the judicial system. Furthermore, challenges against deportation must be filed within the jurisdictions where detainees are held, typically in Texas.

The ACLU persists in asserting that the essence of the Alien Enemies Act contravenes constitutional protections, underscoring the need for formal hearings. The legal debate focuses not merely on the act’s use but its broader implications on migrant communities, ensnaring people in legal limbo without fair representation. The Trump administration, nevertheless, maintains its stance, referring to these deportations as essential for national security.

In March 2025, President Donald Trump, back in office, launched an aggressive deportation campaign targeting illegal immigrants. One key move was invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 on March 14, 2025, to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members of Tren de Aragua without standard… pic.twitter.com/hi9REgdNNf

— Just Stuff™ (@just_stuff_tm) April 1, 2025

Political and Community Response

President Trump has celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision as a significant step towards maintaining national security through stringent immigration controls. His administration is intensifying efforts to identify and deport individuals linked to terrorist organizations such as Tren de Aragua, amidst challenges of proper identification and legal resistance. Community advocates argue that the president’s strategies overreach, emphasizing that incumbents must contest any potential deportations fiercely.

While the legal framework offers an opportunity for deportees to seek judicial redress, the larger question of the Alien Enemies Act’s constitutionality remains unresolved. Community actions and legal entities continue to challenge its validity and application, fearing its misuse could set uncomfortable precedents affecting immigrant treatment and rights within the United States.