The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary order on April 18, 2025, preventing the deportation of Venezuelan detainees accused of being foreign gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. This decision came after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) raised alarms about the imminent removal of these individuals to a prison in El Salvador, known for its harsh conditions. The court's unsigned order emphasized that the government must not remove any detainees from the United States until further notice.

This intervention highlights ongoing tensions between the Supreme Court and the Trump administration regarding deportation policies. The ACLU had previously filed multiple requests to halt the removals, arguing that detainees were being transported under the pretext of imminent deportation without the opportunity to contest their cases. In a hearing, a Department of Justice attorney indicated that while there were no immediate plans for deportations, the administration retained the authority to proceed with removals.

In recent months, the Trump administration has deported hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants, labeling many as members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Families of those deported have contested these claims, asserting that their relatives are not gang members. The legal battle surrounding these deportations raises significant questions about the application of wartime laws and the rights of immigrants, particularly regarding due process.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled that while the administration could invoke wartime authority, detainees must be afforded proper notice and the chance to present their cases. Despite this ruling, reports indicated that deportation flights were still being conducted, leading to further legal challenges. The ACLU's legal team argued that deporting individuals to a foreign prison without due process would violate the Supreme Court's directives.

The case has drawn attention to the broader implications of U.S. immigration policy, particularly in relation to the treatment of individuals labeled as threats without adequate legal recourse. The situation underscores the complexities of immigration enforcement and the potential for human rights violations in the context of state aggression and corporate interests in the immigration system.