Legal experts unloaded Monday after the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a win in its effort to deport migrants it suspects of being gang members by invoking a controversial 1700s law.
The court said Trump's administration can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which was part of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress amid heightened tensions with France. The law gives the president wartime powers to detain, relocate, or deport non-citizens from enemy nations.
Trump invoked the act last month to deport migrants that his administration suspects are members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. This marked the act's first use since World War II.
The Supreme Court vacated Judge James Boasberg's orders that barred Trump's removals using the law — doing so largely over venue, Politico's Kyle Cheney noted — but emphasized the administration must give migrants being deported "reasonable notice" and allow them to appeal their removal orders in court.
ALSO READ:'Not much I can do': GOP senator gives up fight against Trump's tariffs
The ruling didn't sit well with legal experts, however.
Civil rights lawyer Leslie Proll chided on X, "When the lower court holds but the highest court folds…"
Anna Bower, senior editor at Lawfare, wrote on X, "ah, yes, the ole 'keep a habeas petition in your pocket just in case you get disappeared' theory of due process."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote on X after the ruling, "Five justices had the gall to suggest that they were somehow charting a middle ground by allowing the removals to restart but saying that people must be given a 'reasonable time' to file a habeas lawsuit. DO THEY THINK EVERYONE IN DETENTION CAN AFFORD A LAWYER?"
Reichlin-Melnick added: "How the heck are people WITHOUT LAWYERS all going to file habeas lawsuits -- even with notice from ICE? Plus, how would a judge even ensure the government FOLLOWS the Court's decision if all people can challenge is the invocation of the law, not the procedures surrounding it?"
Patrick Jaicomo, civil rights litigator at the Institute for Justice, wrote on X, "The decision is disappointing in its application to people the gov’t already renditioned without due process (and seems to encourages the gov’t to evade judicial review), but SCOTUS confirms, contrary to what demagogues like @StephenM and @mrddmia have been screaming, that illegal aliens get due process and that the Alien Enemies Act requires notice and an opportunity to be heard *before* removal. This means habeas in the district of confinement."