The Trump administration has requested the US Supreme Court to lift a temporary ban on the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, arguing that the ruling was hasty and lacked crucial factual backing.
In a 15-page emergency filing, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the detainees’ legal team should have pursued lower court options before rushing to the Supreme Court. “There has been no fact-finding about the timing, nature, and manner of notice that the government has given the detainees,” said Sauer.
The Supreme Court had stepped in with an early-morning order on Saturday, following urgent petitions from lawyers representing detainees at Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas. The detainees claimed they were loaded onto buses and faced imminent deportation without being given enough time—or clear instructions—to challenge the decision.
According to legal filings, the detainees received notices written only in English, with no proper explanation of their rights or how much time they had to respond. Some of them allegedly had only hours before being deported.
The Supreme Court temporarily halted the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law that had rarely been used in modern immigration enforcement. The order prevents further action “until further order of this court,” hinting that more legal developments are expected soon.
Notably, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Alito stating he would issue a written opinion on the matter later.
The administration has already deported over 200 alleged gang members to El Salvador, despite a judge’s verbal order to stop two flights last month. Many detainees insist they have no gang affiliation and challenge the government’s authority to deport them under the historic Alien Enemies Act.
The Supreme Court had ruled on April 7 that these individuals must be granted “reasonable time” to present their defense in federal court. The Trump administration, however, argues that this ruling shouldn’t prevent deportations under other existing immigration laws.
“The government should not be barred from proceeding under lawful means outside the wartime statute,” said Sauer.
The case, titled A.A.R.P. v. Trump (24A1007), is shaping up to be a significant legal test of presidential powers, immigration enforcement, and the role of federal courts in protecting due process rights.
