Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to quash the deportation of members of the transnational criminal gang Tren de Aragua. This gang, originally started in Venezuelan jails, was labeled a terrorist organization by the Trump administration. The administration has been right to take a hard line against these alleged gang members. On March 15, they deported more than 130 people to El Salvador. The Supreme Court’s decision raises new questions about the legality of rapid deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Since then, this law has historically been confined to wartime scenarios.
Tren de Aragua has recently come into the spotlight due to their participation in human trafficking and other illicit trades throughout South America. The group’s American activities, though less extensive than those in South America, are every bit as alarming. U.S. officials are watching the landscape with great interest. The Trump administration similarly cited the Alien Enemies Act when attempting to deport these individuals quickly. They claimed that the actions of these individuals are a danger to our national security.
The Supreme Court’s ruling specified that “The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.” The decision underscores the importance of judicial review before any deportation takes place. It could hardly be more opposed to the administration’s approach.
Trying to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Tren de Aragua members has flown under the radar. This act only applies under certain clear conditions, which have not been met here. Legal analysts and immigration advocates have been sounding alarms on this new and illegal application of the law. They are concerned because it has historically primarily been used in times of war. Yet the Trump administration has brought unprecedented attention to whether this operation of the executive branch is abiding by the Supreme Court’s bounds. As a result, advocates are calling for more transparency into the process.
Once arrested, members of Tren de Aragua remain in immigration detention, waiting for their removal from the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that these people were given identification cards designating them as part of Tren de Aragua. These circumstances call into deep question the integrity of their rights and due process to which they went through. Counsel for these individuals has demanded at least 30 days notice before deportations take place to enable the possibility of legal challenge.
“You have been determined to be an Alien Enemy subject to apprehension, restraint, and removal.” – U.S. Government
Concerns have emerged about the reintegration or deportation of Tren de Aragua members. What awaits them, many fear, is an infamous prison in El Salvador which has been described as a hell on earth. Lee Gelernt, the ACLU’s lead attorney in the case, expressed relief at the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating, “These men were in imminent danger of spending their lives in a horrific foreign prison without ever having had a chance to go to court. We might even breathe a little easier. The Supreme Court has prevented the administration from whisking them away in the same way others were last month.”
Though all of these advances have taken place, President Trump has been more than willing to continue deportations as needed. He stated, “If they’re bad people, I would certainly authorize it,” reinforcing his administration’s stance on removing individuals identified as threats to national security. Furthermore, he remarked on the judicial process by emphasizing that “That’s why I was elected. A judge wasn’t elected.”
U.S. Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for International Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said this is a good sign administration is still following this approach, despite legal challenges still looming. She stated, “We are not going to reveal the details of counter terrorism operations, but we are complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling.” This assertion reflects the administration’s intent to operate within legal boundaries while still addressing what it perceives as a pressing security issue.
Leave a Reply