Major blow to Donald Trump: Supreme Court halts deportations of immigrants in the United States

The Republican president has been dealt a severe blow by this news, as it will prevent him from fulfilling one of his key campaign promises.

The Court prohibits the immediate transfer of immigrants to El Salvador's prison without the right to defense. The rule used by Trump dates back to 1798 and was only applied in times of war.

The Supreme Court orders a halt to immediate expulsions

The U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday ordered the Donald Trump administration to temporarily suspend deportations of Venezuelans accused of belonging to criminal gangs, carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law invoked by the president in his immigration crusade.

The decision represents a severe setback for the White House, which had already deported at least 137 Venezuelans to the maximum-security Cecot prison in El Salvador, considered by international organizations to be a center for human rights violations.

The court order establishes that none of the detainees may be removed from the country until further notice from the Supreme Court, in response to an emergency appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, opposed the measure.

Arrests without the right to defense

The affected migrants were being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in North Texas and had received notifications in English, even though many do not understand it. According to the lawsuit, they were not told they had the right to challenge the deportation order in federal court.

The ACLU warned that without the Supreme Court's intervention, hundreds of people risked being sent to a foreign prison without a trial or a meaningful opportunity to appeal.

A law used only in times of war

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 has only been applied three times in U.S. history, all during armed conflicts. The last time was during World War II, when Japanese-American citizens were interned without trial.

Trump invoked this law to justify the immediate expulsion of alleged members of the Aragua Train, whom he accused of "threatening a predatory incursion into U.S. territory." Under this pretext, the president ordered deportations without formal notification or reasonable timeframes for defense.

On April 8, the Supreme Court itself had authorized the use of this rule, but with conditions. Migrants were to be informed in advance and given the option to file a writ of habeas corpus. The new order was issued because those conditions were not being met.

Judicial strategy: move them where there are no blockages

According to the ACLU, after the initial court injunctions in Colorado, New York, and South Texas, the government began moving detainees to detention centers where there were no court orders against them, such as Bluebonnet. In doing so, they attempted to circumvent the limits imposed by other judges.

This tactical use of judicial geography has been harshly criticized by human rights advocates, who accuse the Trump administration of seeking legal loopholes to carry out express deportations.

Another setback for Trump: TPS is not being eliminated either.

On the same day the Supreme Court blocked these deportations, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected another request from the Trump administration. This time, it sought to eliminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for some 350.000 Venezuelans, which would also have triggered a wave of immediate expulsions.

The court concluded that the White House failed to justify that it would suffer irreparable harm if the decision was frozen, and upheld a federal judge's ruling that blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's order.

A case that exposes flaws in the system

The judicial tension surrounding these deportations has also been marked by the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported from the United States to Cecot. Although the Department of Justice itself initially acknowledged that it was a mistake, it later attempted to justify his expulsion by claiming ties to MS-13.

The Supreme Court ordered his immediate repatriation to the United States, stating that due process was not respected. Yet the administration has refused to comply with the ruling, in a dangerous sign of institutional confrontation.

Trump puts pressure on, but justice resists

These judicial decisions demonstrate the limits of the president's extreme immigration policies. He has made mass deportation a central theme of his second term. However, the judiciary—although divided—has begun to draw clear red lines regarding respect for due process, even in the most delicate cases.

Donald Trump insists that migrants pose a threat to national security. But for now, the law still requires that even those accused have the right to defend themselves before being expelled.