US Supreme Court Halts Deportation of Venezuelan Detainees Amid Due Process Concerns

In a late-night ruling on Saturday, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily paused the deportation of a group of Venezuelan detainees, intervening in a fast-moving legal dispute over their removal under a centuries-old law. The unsigned order, issued shortly before 1 a.m., instructed the federal government to refrain from deporting any member of the group until further notice from the Court.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented from the decision. The case involves Venezuelan migrants held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas, many of whom are allegedly associated with Tren de Aragua, a violent transnational gang originating in Venezuelan prisons.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the detainees, filed multiple emergency appeals on Friday to halt the deportations. According to the ACLU, some detainees had already been loaded onto buses and told they would be removed imminently. The group argued that the deportation process was proceeding so rapidly that it denied detainees a meaningful chance to challenge their removal in court — a requirement previously outlined by the Supreme Court.

During a separate court hearing on Friday, a Justice Department lawyer, Drew Ensign, said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not confirmed any imminent deportation flights but retained the right to proceed with removals. “They are not aware of any current plans for flights tomorrow,” Ensign said, “but I have also been told to say they reserve the right to remove people tomorrow.”

The Trump administration has invoked the rarely used 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportations, claiming it grants broad executive authority to remove foreign nationals deemed security threats during times of conflict. President Trump and senior officials have labeled Tren de Aragua a terrorist organization, citing its links to organized crime in South America, including human trafficking.

Last year, Trump campaigned on promises to tighten immigration enforcement. Since returning to office, his administration has tested the limits of executive authority in immigration matters, often clashing with the judiciary. On Friday, Trump scored a temporary legal victory when an appeals court stayed a contempt threat issued by District Judge James Boasberg, who had previously ruled against aspects of the administration’s deportation plans.

Boasberg expressed concern that the government might begin deporting more individuals as early as Saturday. Nevertheless, he declined to block the removals, citing an April 7 Supreme Court decision that upheld the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, albeit with limitations. The Court had stipulated that detainees must receive notice and a reasonable opportunity to file habeas corpus petitions before being removed.

Habeas corpus — the legal right to challenge unlawful detention — is a foundational principle in U.S. law. While the Supreme Court did not define the exact amount of advance notice required, legal advocates argue that a minimum of 30 days is necessary to allow detainees to seek relief. The administration has not disclosed how much notice it intends to provide.

The ACLU submitted to the court a copy of one of the notices allegedly given to a detainee. “You have been determined to be an Alien Enemy subject to apprehension, restraint, and removal,” the notice read. The individual reportedly refused to sign the form on April 18, and their name was redacted for privacy.

As legal challenges played out in multiple courts, the ACLU raced to secure an emergency intervention from the Supreme Court after receiving no immediate rulings from Judge James Hendrix in Texas or the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers and defense attorneys demanded greater transparency from the administration, questioning the evidence used to label the detainees as gang members.

“We are not going to reveal the details of counter-terrorism operations,” said Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin in a statement, “but we are complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The legal battle follows the March 15 deportation of over 130 alleged Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador — a move that drew criticism from human rights advocates who claimed many of the deportees were wrongfully accused and never given a chance to defend themselves. There are growing fears that the latest group of detainees could face a similar fate, possibly being sent to high-security prisons in Central America known for harsh conditions.

When asked about the planned removals on Friday, Trump said he was not aware of the specific case but reiterated his support for aggressive deportation policies. “If they’re bad people, I would certainly authorize it,” he said. “That’s why I was elected. A judge wasn’t elected.”

Trump previously called for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg following an unfavorable ruling, prompting a rare statement from Chief Justice John Roberts defending judicial independence.

As the legal battle continues, the fate of the Venezuelan detainees remains uncertain. The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a significant pause, but whether it will ultimately allow or block the removals is still to be determined.

Team Maverick.