In a stunning 7–2 decision on Friday, May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States paused the Trump administration’s rapid removals of Venezuelan migrants under the long-dormant Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798. The ruling, though narrowly procedural, reinforced a fundamental constitutional principle: even in matters of immigration and national security, the executive branch must respect due process. While the Court’s decision does not resolve the larger question of whether Donald Trump can use the AEA to deport thousands of migrants, it halts the removals for now and directs the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to examine two central issues: the legality of invoking the AEA in this context, and how much notice—if any—must be given to those targeted for removal under the act.
Let’s unpacks what the Supreme Court ruled, how we got here, why the Alien Enemies Act remains one of the most controversial tools in the federal government’s arsenal, and what is at stake as the case continues.
I. What Did the Supreme Court Rule?
The ruling in Doe v. Trump, issued Friday, comes at a time of intensified migration, partisan division, and renewed legal challenges to executive power. The justices were asked to review whether President Trump’s April 2025 executive order using the Alien Enemies Act to remove Venezuelan nationals—allegedly for national security reasons—was lawful. Plaintiffs argued that the administration violated their due process rights by initiating deportations with little to no notice, no access to counsel, and no individualized hearing.
The Supreme Court did not issue a final opinion on whether the use of the Alien Enemies Act itself is constitutional in this case. Instead, it affirmed a pause previously issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and extended that stay pending full review by the Fifth Circuit. In doing so, the Court effectively put removals on hold and signaled strong concern about procedural violations.
From the order:
“The government shall not proceed with removals under the Alien Enemies Act until the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit evaluates whether the statute’s use is permissible under current constitutional standards and whether adequate procedural protections were provided to those subject to it.” (Order, 2025, p. 3)
By refusing to let removals proceed while these issues remain unresolved, the majority of the Court placed due process above executive expediency.
II. What Is the Alien Enemies Act?
To understand the implications of this ruling, it is essential to grasp the origins and history of the Alien Enemies Act.
The Alien Enemies Act is one of four laws passed as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, a deeply controversial legislative package signed by President John Adams during rising tensions with France. The other three acts—the Naturalization Act, the Alien Friends Act, and the Sedition Act—were either repealed or expired long ago. Only the Alien Enemies Act remains in force.
Codified at 50 U.S.C. § 21, the statute provides:
“Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government… all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upwards, and who shall be within the United States… shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed as alien enemies.” (50 U.S.C. § 21)
The law was originally designed to apply only during declared wars. Later amendments extended its applicability to times of “actual or threatened hostilities,” even absent a formal declaration. It has been used sparingly in U.S. history, most notoriously during World War II to justify the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals.
III. Why Is Trump Using the AEA in 2025?
Following a failed attempt to pass immigration legislation through Congress, President Trump issued Executive Order 14098 on April 2, 2025, declaring that “a state of de facto hostilities” existed between the United States and “Venezuelan-affiliated actors engaged in transnational destabilization.” The vague phrasing prompted immediate backlash. Within days, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began detaining Venezuelan migrants in large numbers—many of whom had Temporary Protected Status (TPS), pending asylum claims, or long-standing community ties.
The administration claimed it was invoking the Alien Enemies Act to protect national security. Critics, including multiple legal scholars and immigrant rights groups, called the move a political stunt designed to appear tough on immigration in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections.
IV. The Due Process Question at the Heart of the Case
The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and private immigration attorneys, argued that the Trump administration’s deportations under the AEA denied Venezuelan nationals basic due process protections. These include:
- Advance notice of removal
- An opportunity to contest the government’s designation of them as “alien enemies”
- Access to legal counsel
- A meaningful hearing before an impartial adjudicator
Their arguments rested on precedents such as Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), which set the balancing test for procedural due process, and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which held that noncitizens in removal proceedings are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s order does not explicitly reference these cases but clearly leans on their underlying principles. In essence, the Court said that even under a centuries-old statute like the AEA, the executive branch cannot unilaterally erase constitutional protections.
V. Legal Questions the Fifth Circuit Must Now Decide
By deferring to the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court placed enormous weight on two questions:
- Is the use of the Alien Enemies Act lawful in the absence of a formally declared war or clear hostilities?
- What procedural protections, if any, are required before the government can deport individuals under the AEA?
These questions go far beyond the fate of Venezuelan migrants. Their answers will determine the scope of executive power in immigration enforcement and set precedent for how other “emergency” laws may be used in the future.
VI. Historical Parallels and Cautionary Lessons
The Alien Enemies Act has rarely been used. When it has, it has left deep scars. During World War II, it was part of the legal justification for Japanese internment, a policy the United States later formally apologized for. In Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the Supreme Court upheld the internment—an opinion that has since been repudiated but not formally overruled.
That legacy looms large. Civil liberties advocates argue that Trump’s use of the AEA against Venezuelans risks repeating the sins of the past under a different guise. “You cannot declare a class of people your enemy without evidence, hearings, or oversight,” said law professor Rachel N. Torres in an op-ed for The Washington Post (Torres, 2025).
VII. Impact If the Administration Complies with the Ruling
If the Trump administration complies with the Court’s order—and that is a substantial “if,” given past resistance to judicial intervention—several things must happen:
- All removals under the AEA will remain paused until the Fifth Circuit rules
- Venezuelan migrants currently detained under the AEA must be given notice, legal access, and potentially released if removals cannot proceed lawfully
- Immigration courts, already backlogged, may face pressure to provide individual hearings if mass designations are struck down
- DHS and ICE must re-evaluate the executive order’s scope and justification
Most significantly, the administration would be restrained—at least temporarily—from using a wartime statute to bypass contemporary legal norms.
VIII. What Happens If the Administration Ignores the Court?
There is a real possibility the administration may attempt to sidestep or undermine the Court’s authority, as it has in previous immigration-related rulings. In 2018, for instance, the Trump administration was chastised for circumventing the Flores settlement agreement on child detention limits. In 2020, it attempted mass removals of asylum seekers in defiance of a federal judge’s injunction.
Should the administration move forward with removals under the AEA despite the Supreme Court’s order, it would trigger a constitutional crisis. The rule of law depends on the executive branch honoring judicial constraints. A defiance of the May 2025 ruling could lead to contempt proceedings, further injunctions, and political backlash.
IX. A Larger Constitutional Crossroads
This case is about more than Venezuelan migrants. It is about the kind of nation the United States wants to be. Do we uphold due process and resist xenophobia, even when politically inconvenient? Or do we allow centuries-old laws to be weaponized against the most vulnerable under the guise of national security?
Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky writes:
“The Alien Enemies Act may have survived the centuries, but our understanding of liberty, fairness, and constitutional integrity has not stood still. The executive cannot use antique tools to erase modern rights.” (Chemerinsky, 2025)
If the Fifth Circuit affirms due process protections, it could redefine the boundaries of immigration law in America. If it does not, the Supreme Court may again have to weigh in—and the stakes will be even higher.
X. Final Thoughts: Justice, Power, and the People
This case reminds us that the Constitution is not self-executing. It requires vigilance, challenge, and courage from all corners of society—lawyers, migrants, judges, and citizens. Whether one views the migrants as victims of foreign collapse or pawns in a political drama, the question remains: will the United States honor its founding ideals, or will fear continue to govern who belongs?
For now, the Court has said, “Not so fast.” But it is up to the people—and the courts—to say what comes next.
References
Chemerinsky, E. (2025). Why the Alien Enemies Act Must Go. UCLA Law Review.
Doe v. Trump, No. 24A1007 (U.S. May 16, 2025), https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25944899/24a1007-order.pdf
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
Torres, R. N. (2025, May 15). “Trump’s Deportation Order Is a Constitutional Time Bomb.” The Washington Post.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
