A divided Supreme Court on Monday night sent a high-profile case to Texas from Washington, D.C., involving a dispute over Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport alleged gang members.
In its unsigned per curiam decision in Trump v. J.G.G. the Court vacated a temporary restraining order (TRO) from a District of Columbia federal court that stopped nationwide deportations under the act. For now, the deportations can continue under certain conditions. Five Venezuelans in the United States who had been detained and sent to Texas had filed a class action lawsuit in D.C. to enjoin their deportation.
“Today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge,” read the opinion. "For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.
The Court majority cited the writ of habeas corpus as requiring hearings for the five men in a federal court in Texas. The writ, as stated in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, requires law enforcement authorities to produce a prisoner they are holding in court, and to justify the prisoner's continued confinement.
“Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude[s] judicial review must be brought in habeas,’” the majority said, citing several prior court decisions. “For ‘core habeas petitions,’ ‘jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.’ The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.”
The majority also concluded that anyone detained under the AEA facing removal from the country “must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” It also held the per curiam opinion did not need to consider the arguments that the men were not within the category of removable alien enemies as stated in the AEA.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the opinion. “Importantly, as the Court stresses, the Court’s disagreement with the dissenters is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers—all nine Members of the Court agree that judicial review is available. The only question is where that judicial review should occur.”
Three justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented in full, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining part of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent.
“The Court’s legal conclusion is suspect. The Court intervenes anyway, granting the government extraordinary relief and vacating the District Court’s order on that basis alone. It does so without mention of the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the Government’s attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation,” Sotomayor wrote.
“The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she concluded.
Justice Jackson also questioned timing of the Court’s decision to stay the TRO just before the district court’s preliminary-injunction hearing without scheduling arguments or merits briefings. “This fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous,” Jackson said.
On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia cancelled a scheduled hearing on that matter.
Background on the Case
On Feb. 20, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang as a foreign terrorist organization. A few weeks later on March 15, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation ordering the deportation of “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” The order, “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua,” said that “TdA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States,” and that the gang was “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States.” The order cited the Alien Enemies Act in support of the legality of the deportations.
On March 26, 2025, a divided federal District of Columbia appeals court upheld the TRO issued by District Judge James Boasberg preventing the deportations. Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris argued the appeals court and district court had exceeded their powers in issuing and upholding the TRO. Harris also argued that legal proceedings in the case need to be conducted in Texas, and not the District of Columbia.
In a 2-1 decision, the District of Columbia appeals court denied the emergency request from the government to stay the TRO and let the deportations go into effect, which resulted in the Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Alien Enemies Act was one of several controversial measures taken by the federal government in the context of the 1798 Quasi War with France. The Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today, and it deals with the status of aliens in the United States during a war. It goes into effect “whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government.” (Congress has the exclusive ability to declare a state of war under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, per the Declare War Clause.)
Under the act, the president can publicly declare that “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government’ may be detained, relocated, or removed from the United States as alien enemies.” After such proclamation, the Act specifies that “it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction” to apprehend aliens for court appearances.
The Alien Enemies Act has been used during three prior conflicts: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Whether it can be used outside of a declared war, or against parties other than a nation or foreign government, has been a matter of recent debate since then.
Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.
