Supreme Court Blocks Use of Alien Enemies Act for Mass Deportations

On May 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant opinion in A.A.R.P., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., halting the federal government’s attempt to deport Venezuelan nationals under the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798. The case arose after the Trump administration began expedited removal proceedings against dozens of Venezuelans alleged to be affiliated with the gang Tren de Aragua, which the government recently designated a foreign terrorist organization. Read more about this important ruling below, and contact Gladstein & Messinger, P.C., for help from an experienced New York immigration removal and deportation defense lawyer.

Immigrants Entitled to Due Process Before Removal

Rather than relying on traditional immigration statutes and procedures, the administration invoked the AEA—an antiquated wartime law historically used only rarely and only during formal armed conflicts—to justify detaining and removing non-citizens without ordinary due process. In applying the law to the Venezuelan migrants in question, the administration claimed that, as “enemies,” these individuals were not entitled to judicial hearings or standard immigration protections.

In a per curiam decision (issued in the name of the court rather than one authoring Justice), the Court sided with the petitioners, holding that the government’s use of the AEA in this context violated fundamental due process rights. The Supreme Court criticized the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for dismissing the plaintiffs’ emergency appeal on jurisdictional grounds, thereby allowing deportations to proceed unchecked. The High Court found that the district court’s failure to act in the face of urgent constitutional concerns functioned as an effective denial of the petitioners’ request for relief.

Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that even non-citizens facing removal under national security justifications retain the right to meaningful judicial review. In doing so, it reinforced a bedrock principle of American law: executive authority, particularly in immigration matters, must operate within constitutional bounds.

The ruling sends a strong signal that the federal courts will not abdicate their responsibility to scrutinize actions that risk eroding the rights of vulnerable populations, even when national security is invoked.

Ruling Comes in a New Era of Stepped-Up Deportations

This ruling comes amid a broader crackdown on immigration by the current Trump administration. Since returning to office in January 2025, the president has pursued an aggressive immigration enforcement agenda that includes expanded use of expedited removal, reactivation of controversial travel bans, and deployment of immigration officers into previously off-limits zones such as schools and courthouses. President Trump is doing all he can to fulfill a promise to deport millions of immigrations, but he is being met with heavy legal opposition to his tactics which often fail to withstand judicial scrutiny,

The administration has sought to remove procedural safeguards that, while not granting rights equivalent to those held by U.S. citizens, at least ensured a modicum of fairness and transparency for non-citizens. By invoking wartime statutes like the Alien Enemies Act and sidestepping conventional immigration channels, federal authorities have signaled a willingness to test the legal limits of executive power in immigration enforcement.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling in A.A.R.P. v. Trump places a check on the most extreme tactics, it does not eliminate the heightened risk of detention and deportation now facing thousands of immigrants across the country. In this climate, legal representation in removal proceedings is more critical than ever.

Defenses Available in Removal Proceedings

If you or someone you know is facing removal, it is vital to understand the legal options available. Common defenses to deportation include:

• Asylum and Withholding of Removal: Individuals who fear persecution in their home country due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group may be eligible for protection. These forms of relief require credible evidence and detailed testimony but can provide a path to remain in the United States legally. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has suspended asylum as well, teeing up more legal challenges in the courts.
• Protection Under the Convention Against Torture (CAT): If an individual is likely to be tortured by or with the consent of the government in their home country, they may qualify for relief under CAT. This protection is particularly important for those coming from regimes known for human rights abuses.
• Cancellation of Removal: Long-term U.S. residents may be eligible to apply for cancellation of removal if they meet specific residency requirements and can show that their removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family member.
• Adjustment of Status or Waivers: Some individuals may be eligible to adjust their immigration status or apply for waivers based on family relationships, humanitarian concerns, or previous legal entry into the United States.

These defenses are highly fact-specific, and success often hinges on the ability to present a strong and well-documented case before an immigration judge.

Why Legal Representation Matters Now More Than Ever

In a time of accelerated enforcement and evolving legal standards, the importance of competent legal representation cannot be overstated. Removal proceedings are fast-paced and complex, and unrepresented individuals are significantly more likely to be deported—even when they have viable claims for relief. The executive branch is moving aggressively to deport non-citizens like never before, and appealing to the courts may be one’s only shot at staying in the country and receiving fair treatment.

At Gladstein & Messinger, P.C., our attorneys are experienced in challenging removal orders, preparing asylum applications, and defending clients against allegations of criminal or national security threats. We work tirelessly to ensure that our clients’ rights are protected and that they have every opportunity to present their case.

The Supreme Court’s decision in A.A.R.P. v. Trump shows that the judiciary still serves as a crucial check on executive overreach. But the burden of invoking those protections often falls squarely on the shoulders of individual immigrants and their legal advocates. If you or a loved one is at risk of deportation, contact Gladstein & Messinger, P.C. today. We are here to help you navigate the legal system and fight for your future.