ACLU Prevails as Supreme Court Upholds Due Process for Immigrants

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The ACLU claimed victory Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan detainees under the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act, ruling that the federal government must provide constitutionally sufficient notice before carrying out removals.

The decision, which stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the ACLU of Texas, represents a strong rebuke of efforts by the Trump administration to bypass standard immigration protections and use wartime powers in peacetime to detain and remove immigrants without due process.

In a per curiam opinion issued May 16 in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had erred in dismissing the detainees’ emergency appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and reinstated a temporary injunction that had paused removals of Venezuelan nationals detained in Texas. These individuals, accused by the Trump administration of being affiliated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, had been slated for rapid deportation under a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a statute originally passed in 1798 during the John Adams administration.

The detainees, many of whom are held in federal detention facilities in northern Texas, argued that they were provided with virtually no advance notice of their removal orders and were not given a meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportations in federal court. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, some individuals were reportedly told they would be removed “tonight or tomorrow,” and several had already been transported to airports before being returned to their facilities.

The Court found that the district court’s failure to act for over 14 hours in response to an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order effectively amounted to a denial of relief in the face of imminent, irreparable harm.

“We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision because it underscores that immigrants are accorded due process and that it must be meaningful,” said Adriana Piñon, legal director of the ACLU of Texas, in a statement issued following the ruling. “The federal government’s flimsy excuse for process fails to recognize the importance of the rights at stake. This is not only a win for immigrant communities, it is a win for all Texans.”

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel on the case, emphasized the stakes of the Court’s decision: “The Court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador. The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.”

The Supreme Court made clear that its ruling is limited to procedural protections and does not yet decide the ultimate legality of using the Alien Enemies Act to carry out these removals. However, it unequivocally affirmed that individuals detained under the Act are entitled to adequate notice and an opportunity to seek habeas corpus relief before being deported.

Citing long-standing due process precedent, including Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. and The Japanese Immigrant Case, the Court stated that notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties” and must allow “a reasonable time” to respond.

The Supreme Court also criticized the government’s handling of the removals. Although the administration had claimed that no removals would occur on April 18, evidence in the record showed that detainees were moved toward airports that afternoon, and only a last-minute order from the Court halted the deportations.

The justices were particularly concerned that, had these removals occurred, the government might have argued that U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction to provide any post-removal relief.

The Court noted that the detainees face “indefinite detention” in El Salvador’s prison system if wrongfully deported and stated that notice given only 24 hours in advance, without information about legal remedies or how to contact counsel, “surely does not pass muster.”

The Supreme Court granted both the petition for certiorari and the application for an injunction, vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit has been directed to consider whether the AEA actually authorizes the removals in question and what precise form of notice is constitutionally required. In the meantime, the Court ordered the government not to remove the named plaintiffs or any member of the putative class while the litigation continues.

In the ruling, the Court underscored that the stakes were too high to allow removals to proceed in the absence of procedural safeguards. “Procedural due process rules are meant to protect against the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property,” the Court wrote, adding that “no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.”

Although the government argued that it had made no final removal plans for the named plaintiffs, the Court rejected the notion that a promise not to remove certain individuals could be used to avoid judicial review of class-wide practices. “We are skeptical of the self-defeating notion that the right to the notice necessary to actually seek habeas relief must itself be vindicated through individual habeas petitions, somehow by plaintiffs who have not received notice,” the Court said.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that the Court should go further and immediately resolve the substantive legal questions surrounding the AEA’s applicability in this context. “The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court,” he wrote. “At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues.”

Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from the majority’s decision to grant relief, arguing that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction and that the lower court had acted reasonably in taking time to consider the complex legal questions raised in the case. He characterized the Court’s intervention as unwarranted and based on weak evidence of imminent harm.

Despite the dissent, the Court’s order remains in effect and has immediate implications for hundreds of Venezuelan detainees who were at risk of being removed without access to courts. The government retains the ability to pursue removals under other lawful immigration authorities but cannot proceed under the AEA until further judicial review occurs.

The ACLU has framed the ruling as a pivotal moment in its broader legal campaign against the Trump administration’s use of arcane and punitive enforcement tools to target immigrant communities. In court filings, the organization emphasized that the Alien Enemies Act has not been used in a non-wartime context in modern American history and warned that the administration’s actions could open the door to arbitrary removals based on tenuous or politically motivated claims.

“This Court’s intervention is necessary so that Petitioners and the putative class are not unlawfully sent to a Salvadoran prison pursuant to the Proclamation, perhaps for the remainder of their lives,” the ACLU wrote in its filing.

Categories:

Breaking News Everyday Injustice

Tags:

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Leave a Comment