Trump Appeals To SCOTUS To Halt Lower Court Ruling On Alien Enemies Act

President Donald Trump’s administration submitted an emergency request to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, seeking intervention in the ongoing legal battle over the Alien Enemies Act. This wartime statute, which Trump invoked to swiftly deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang, has become the focal point of intense debate.

The emergency petition asks the Supreme Court to overturn an order issued by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who had halted further deportations under the act. By doing so, the high court is once again drawn into a legal struggle involving Trump’s policies.

At the heart of this legal showdown between the executive branch and the judiciary, the case is regarded as one of the most significant currently before the Supreme Court regarding Trump’s second term, according to CNN.

“This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country – the President, through Article II, or the judiciary,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued before the Supreme Court. “The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice.”

As with prior legal disputes, the Trump administration’s argument highlights frustration with lower courts for obstructing executive actions. Temporary judicial orders, though not definitively ruling on Trump’s authority, have nevertheless hindered key elements of his agenda.

The dispute centers on Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an emergency law granting the president sweeping powers to target and deport undocumented individuals. This statute applies in times of war or in response to an “invasion or predatory incursion.”

Shortly after Trump invoked the law on March 15, more than 200 Venezuelans were placed on three planes and transported to El Salvador, where they were detained in a high-security facility. The administration has since stated that some individuals were deported under laws separate from the 18th-century act. Officials claim the deported individuals were affiliated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

This Supreme Court appeal follows Chief Justice John Roberts’ recent public dismissal of Trump’s suggestion that Boasberg should be impeached for his ruling on the matter.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts stated in a Supreme Court-issued statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

The administration faces a lawsuit from five Venezuelan individuals currently detained by the Department of Homeland Security. While deliberating on the case, Judge Boasberg issued a temporary order preventing the government from carrying out further deportations under the act, not just against the plaintiffs but anyone in similar circumstances.

However, Boasberg’s ruling did not stop the administration from detaining individuals under the act or deporting them under other legal statutes.

In response, Trump swiftly appealed.

On Wednesday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Boasberg’s decision in a 2-1 ruling, keeping the restrictions in place while the case proceeds. The majority consisted of judges appointed by President George H.W. Bush and President Obama. Trump has now escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

In a detailed concurrence, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson provided a textualist analysis that may resonate with conservative justices. She challenged Trump’s assertion that migration at the U.S.-Mexico border constitutes an invasion and argued that courts retain the ability to scrutinize how laws are applied.

“The term ‘invasion’ was well known to the Fifth Congress and the American public circa 1798,” Henderson wrote. “The phrase echoes throughout the Constitution ratified by the people just nine years before. And in every instance, it is used in a military sense.”

Members of the Trump administration, including Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, have interpreted past rulings to mean that courts lack the authority to assess how a president enforces the law.

However, Henderson’s concurrence on Wednesday pushed back on that notion.

“The elected branches – not the unelected bench – decide when a war has terminated. That is a question of fact for elected leaders,” she stated. “That does not mean that courts cannot pass on the legal meaning of statutory terms.”