Washington, D.C. — A divided U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan detainees, granting them a last-minute reprieve from being sent to a high-security prison in El Salvador that has gained international notoriety for its harsh conditions.
The emergency order, issued early Saturday morning in Washington, came as detainees housed at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, filed urgent appeals in multiple courts to halt their removal. Lawyers representing the men said they had been placed on buses and were told they could be deported as early as Friday afternoon.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order pauses the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a wartime-era law the Trump administration invoked to justify deportations of individuals it claims are affiliated with violent gangs. The decision states that deportations are blocked “until further order of this court,” suggesting the justices may revisit the issue once the administration files a formal response.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, with Alito indicating he plans to issue a written opinion at a later time.
The case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, underscores the escalating legal battle between the Trump administration and federal courts as the former president seeks to revive aggressive immigration policies. Trump has repeatedly vowed to carry out mass deportations if elected to a second term and has leaned on rarely used legal mechanisms to do so.
In a statement Saturday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the administration’s actions, saying, “President Trump promised the American people to use all lawful measures to remove the threat of terrorist illegal aliens, like members of TdA, from the United States. We are confident in the lawfulness of the administration’s actions and in ultimately prevailing.”
However, attorneys for the detainees argue that many of the individuals being deported have never belonged to any criminal group and were denied adequate due process. They also say the Alien Enemies Act has never before been used in this way in peacetime, and question its applicability in immigration enforcement.
According to court filings, some detainees were accused of gang affiliation based on vague or circumstantial evidence — including tattoos, social media emojis, or online comments made by others. Many of the men reportedly received deportation notices only in English and were not informed how to contest their removal.
“This doesn’t remotely comply with the Supreme Court’s prior order,” attorneys with the ACLU wrote in an emergency filing, referring to a decision just 12 days earlier that said the detainees must be given “a reasonable time” to challenge their deportation.
Late Friday, a series of legal developments added urgency to the case. In Washington, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg held a hearing in which Justice Department attorneys claimed no deportation flights were scheduled for that evening or Saturday — but reserved the right to carry out removals later. Boasberg ultimately ruled he lacked jurisdiction, as the detainees were being held in Texas.
Earlier that day, District Judge James Hendrix in Texas declined to block the deportations, citing the need for more time to weigh the complex constitutional issues. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to intervene.
Meanwhile, a federal appeals court in Washington temporarily blocked Judge Boasberg from initiating criminal contempt proceedings against government officials for allegedly ignoring his March 15 order to stop deportation flights. That ruling gives the appellate court time to consider whether government officials willfully disregarded the judge’s commands.
Friday’s court activity came amid broader concerns that immigration enforcement is being carried out without sufficient judicial oversight. At Friday’s hearing, ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said detainees had been transferred to Bluebonnet from across the country — sometimes in defiance of court orders elsewhere. He indicated legal teams would be filing cases in all 94 federal judicial districts to protect the detainees.
The administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act — which dates back more than two centuries and was designed for use in wartime against nationals of enemy countries — is expected to be at the heart of the coming legal debate.
When asked Friday whether he had personally authorized the operation, Trump responded: “I don’t know about the group you’re talking about, but if they’re bad people, I would certainly authorize it, yeah.”
The case remains unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s temporary stay buying time for further legal proceedings. The next steps will likely determine whether this obscure law can be repurposed to facilitate mass deportations — or whether it crosses constitutional boundaries set by existing immigration law.
The Supreme Court case is A.A.R.P. v. Trump, docket number 24A1007.