The US Supreme Court has handed former President Donald Trump a major legal victory, affirming his authority to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to summarily deport non-citizens designated as national security threats.
In two separate rulings, the Court blocked attempts by lower federal judges to override executive decisions concerning the deportation of individuals linked to violent criminal and terrorist activity. The rulings reaffirm presidential power under a centuries-old law, reinforcing the executive branch’s discretion in matters of national security and immigration enforcement.
MS-13 Member Deported Despite Court Order
In the first case, the Court stayed a ruling by US District Judge Paula Zinn, who had ordered President Trump to reverse the deportation of Kilmar Armando Arreaga Garcia, a Salvadoran national linked to the MS-13 criminal gang.
Garcia entered the US illegally in 2011 and was found in the company of known MS-13 members multiple times. After receiving a final deportation order in 2019, he remained in the country until being arrested again in March 2025. Despite his documented gang ties and a standing deportation order, Judge Zinn demanded the administration return Garcia from El Salvador’s CECOT prison by midnight on April 7.
The Supreme Court intervened and froze Zinn’s directive. The unsigned order nullifies the lower court’s ruling pending further review, allowing Garcia’s deportation to stand.
Venezuelan Militants Case Upheld
In the second case, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to detain and deport five Venezuelan nationals described as TDA militants — designated by the administration as quasi-military actors engaged in hostile incursions into the US.
The individuals were removed from a deportation flight and held in a Texas detention center after legal challenges were filed. Judge James Boasberg of the DC District Court attempted to assert jurisdiction over the matter, ordering that the deportation be halted.
The Supreme Court rejected that move. Writing for the majority, the Court upheld the President’s sole authority under the Alien Enemies Act to determine the disposition of individuals identified as enemy aliens. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the decision.
Presidential Power Under 1798 Law
The Alien Enemies Act, signed by President John Adams in 1798, grants the President unilateral authority to detain and deport non-citizens from hostile nations or designated groups during times of conflict or threat. Once an individual is classified under a presidential proclamation, the government must show they meet basic criteria: they are not US citizens, are at least 14 years old, and fall under the designated group.
Once these conditions are met, the law authorizes summary deportation. The Act has rarely been used in modern times, but the Trump administration revived its application to address transnational criminal and paramilitary threats.
Attorney Andrew Branca, who specializes in self-defense and constitutional law, said the rulings represent a “huge win” for executive authority. He criticized lower court judges for what he described as unconstitutional interference with national security decisions.
Pushback on Judicial Overreach
Branca said Judge Boasberg attempted to concentrate cases challenging Trump’s authority into his own courtroom, despite lacking jurisdiction over detainees held in Texas. He described the judge’s actions as those of a “black-robed, unelected tyrant” overstepping constitutional bounds.
“The Supreme Court just crushed underfoot the flagrantly unconstitutional meddling of these inferior court judges,” Branca said.
With the Court’s rulings in place, the five Venezuelan detainees remain in custody pending deportation, and Garcia will remain in El Salvador — at least until further judicial review.
Legal Precedent Set
These back-to-back Supreme Court decisions may reshape how future administrations handle deportations tied to national security, particularly under the Alien Enemies Act. The rulings emphasize the president’s primacy in such matters and limit the ability of lower federal judges to interfere.
