On Saturday, the US Supreme Court temporarily halted the deportation of Venezuelans detained at the Bluebonnet Detention Centre in northern Texas, effectively preventing removals under an 18th-century wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act. The Court’s ruling was made following an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued that immigration authorities were preparing to resume deportations without due process.
The Supreme Court’s order specifically stated that no Venezuelans could be deported “until further order of this court.” The ruling was not unanimous; Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. This decision came in light of earlier Supreme Court guidance that deportations could only occur if detainees were given an opportunity to contest their removals in court within a reasonable timeframe.
ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt expressed relief at the Court’s decision, emphasising the imminent danger faced by the detainees, who could have been sent to brutal prisons in El Salvador without any legal recourse. Earlier on Friday, two federal judges had declined to intervene as the ACLU initiated a legal effort to prevent the deportations.
The ACLU’s concerns intensified as immigration officials accused some Venezuelan detainees of affiliations with the Tren de Aragua gang, thereby justifying their swift removal. Historically, the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked only three times, with the last instance during World War II with Japanese-Americans.
In previous court rulings, federal judges from Colorado, New York, and southern Texas mandated a halt to removals under the act until a legal process for detainees was established. However, no such order had been issued in the Texas region where Bluebonnet is located, leading to ongoing concerns.
Judge James Wesley Hendrix, appointed by former President Trump, refrained from prohibiting deportations, citing that ICE representatives assured there would be no immediate removals. This judgment was challenged by claims from immigration lawyers, who provided evidence indicating that detainees were misinformed and could be deported imminently.
Despite indications that detainees were being transported for deportation, the ACLU’s legal maneuvers aimed to secure protective orders to halt the actions of immigration authorities. A separate court ruling in Massachusetts reinforced the need for transparency and procedural fairness in deportations, thereby further complicating the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.
The situation underscores ongoing legal challenges and the complexities involved as the Trump administration seeks to navigate deportation protocols amidst a backdrop of legal and humanitarian considerations. The next move by the administration is expected to be a renewed appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the temporary block on deportations.