When Venue Becomes Verdict: SCOTUS Says Noncitizens Must Challenge Removal in Texas, Not D.C.
In a polarizing 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a significant victory in its effort to use a centuries-old law to deport alleged gang-affiliated noncitizens—without initial judicial review. At the heart of this case is a controversial executive order issued on March 15, designating members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) as “alien enemies” under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798, a statute rarely invoked since WWII.
Though the plaintiffs argued that the executive order violated their rights, the Court sidestepped their substantive claims. Instead, the majority ruled that any challenge must be filed in Texas, where the detainees are being held—not in Washington, D.C., where the lawsuit was initially brought.
This ruling has profound implications not only for immigration law but also for the scope of presidential authority in national security and the rights of noncitizens to judicial review before removal.
⚖️ The Legal Background: Trump’s Use of the Alien Enemies Act
The AEA empowers the President to detain or deport nationals of enemy countries during war or invasion. Though enacted in 1798, the law has only been used during the War of 1812, WWI, and WWII. Trump’s executive order claims that Tren de Aragua—a violent Venezuelan prison gang now active in Latin America and the U.S.—is perpetrating a “predatory incursion” against American soil. Based on this designation, the administration moved to detain and deport Venezuelan nationals aged 14 and above affiliated with the group.
The plaintiffs, however, challenged this sweeping categorization, arguing:
- They were not affiliated with TdA,
- The AEA doesn’t apply to their circumstances,
- Their rights to judicial review were being bypassed.
🏛️ Initial Legal Victory for Plaintiffs in D.C.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg initially blocked the government from deporting the five named Venezuelan plaintiffs and issued a broader order preventing removal under the AEA altogether. He even ordered flights that had already departed with detainees to return to the U.S.
Despite this, over 200 noncitizens were allegedly deported to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned in a maximum-security facility. Videos of their arrival—shaved heads, shackled limbs—were circulated by El Salvador’s President and reposted by U.S. officials, triggering outrage and questions about due process violations.
⚖️ Supreme Court Steps In
The Trump administration appealed Boasberg’s ruling. The D.C. Circuit Court declined to pause the order, prompting the government to escalate to the Supreme Court. On March 28, the acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris urged the justices to lift Boasberg’s stay, arguing that “the President—not the Judiciary—decides national security matters.”
On April 1, the Supreme Court agreed—not by analyzing the AEA itself, but by ruling that the case had been brought in the wrong venue.
🧑⚖️ The Majority’s Ruling: It’s About Venue, Not Merits
In an unsigned opinion, Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, stated that because the plaintiffs are detained in Texas, their case must be filed there, not in D.C. Since their claim inherently challenged the validity of their detention, it was, in essence, a habeas corpus petition—which must be filed in the district where they’re held.
However, the Court did acknowledge that noncitizens detained under the AEA are entitled to:
- Notice that they’re subject to removal,
- A reasonable opportunity to seek habeas review before removal is executed.
Justice Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, stressed that all nine justices agree that judicial review is required—the disagreement lies in where it should happen.
🧨 The Dissents: Dangerous, Rushed, and Indefensible
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a 17-page dissent, joined by Justices Kagan, Jackson, and partially by Barrett. She criticized the Court for intervening prematurely and warned that the ruling could lead to wrongful deportations without recourse, referencing a pending case where a U.S. citizen was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added her own dissent, condemning the “fly-by-night” nature of the Court’s emergency ruling. She cautioned that sidestepping normal judicial process risks setting dangerous precedents in high-stakes constitutional matters.
💡 Why This Ruling Matters
This case is not just about immigration; it’s about who controls due process during national security crises. The ruling raises serious concerns for:
- Immigration attorneys dealing with removal proceedings,
- Civil rights advocates concerned about unchecked executive power,
- Constitutional scholars assessing the balance between national security and civil liberties.
By shifting the focus to venue, the Court effectively delayed—but didn’t deny—plaintiffs’ access to justice. Still, for those already deported, the ruling offers little comfort. For many others, the risk of error without recourse is real and rising.
#SCOTUS #AlienEnemiesAct #ImmigrationLaw #DueProcessMatters #TrenDeAragua #NationalSecurityLaw #SupremeCourtWatch #LegalRights #ExecutivePower #ImmigrationDetention
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment