ACLU launches lawsuit challenging Trump administration’s deportations under 1798 wartime law after Supreme Court ruling allows removal of Venezuelan gang members.

At a Glance

• ACLU filed emergency lawsuit in New York to block deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798
• Supreme Court previously ruled Trump administration could use the Act but must provide notice and opportunity to challenge
• Lawsuit represents two Venezuelans, including one allegedly linked to Tren de Aragua, a designated terrorist organization
• ACLU argues the 226-year-old law only applies during wartime, not to suspected terrorist associations
• Trump administration maintains Tren de Aragua poses a national security threat through hostile actions in the US

Legal Battle Escalates Following Supreme Court Decision

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), New York Civil Liberties Union, and The Legal Aid Society have filed an emergency lawsuit in federal court in New York seeking to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. This legal challenge comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that lifted a nationwide temporary restraining order related to President Trump’s use of the 1798 law to expedite the removal of Venezuelan nationals allegedly linked to terrorism. The ACLU’s lawsuit represents two Venezuelan individuals targeted for deportation under the controversial policy.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling permits the Trump administration to proceed with deportations of suspected gang members, it specified that individuals must be given due process, including notice and opportunity to challenge their removals.

The court directed that cases must be filed in the district where detainees are held, primarily in Texas, rather than in Washington, D.C. The Trump administration celebrated the decision, though the constitutional questions surrounding the Act remain unresolved.

ACLU just filed a lawsuit to stop President Trump from using the alien enemies act for deportations, after a Supreme Court ruling just came down, allowing him to continue to do so.

I would like to know at which point conservatives are going to start pursuing bar complaints and…

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) April 8, 2025

Dispute Over 226-Year-Old Law’s Application

At the center of this legal battle is the Alien Enemies Act, a 226-year-old wartime statute that the Trump administration has invoked to bypass typical immigration procedures. The ACLU argues that President Trump’s use fundamentally misinterprets the law, which they claim applies only during formal wartime conditions. The administration, however, asserts that Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated as a terrorist organization, is engaged in hostile actions against the United States, allegedly directed by Venezuela’s Maduro regime.

“This ruling is a crucial first step toward immigrant justice—and a powerful reminder that when communities stand up, we can push back against oppressive policies.”, notes the American Civil Liberties Union.

President Trump responded to the Supreme Court’s initial ruling with enthusiasm, writing on social media: “GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” His administration has been working to identify alleged gang members for deportation, though challenges exist due to the lack of clear identification in many cases. The policy specifically targets Venezuelan nationals associated with terrorism who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

It’s also a completely false and dishonest summary of both the Trump admin’s position and the controlling Supreme Court precedent under Ludecke, which says *proclamations under the law* are not subject to judicial review. Individuals have always had the right to challenge their… https://t.co/g75zMSUFTM

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) April 8, 2025

Plaintiffs’ Cases Highlight Due Process Concerns

One of the Venezuelan nationals represented in the ACLU lawsuit is allegedly linked to Tren de Aragua, while the other claims political persecution if returned to Venezuela. Previous deportation cases under the Act have raised serious due process questions. In one instance highlighted in court documents, a detainee had no opportunity to contest allegations of gang membership. The ACLU is seeking to establish a class action approach that would extend protections to other affected individuals.

“Indeed because Abrego Garcia was deprived of any judicial review whatsoever, he had no opportunity to even respond to prove that he is not a member of MS-13”, said Abrego Garcia’s lawyer.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has defended the administration’s approach, suggesting that the judicial review process will be “much smoother, simpler” than critics claim. Meanwhile, the NYCLU emphasizes that fair hearings are essential to prevent potentially lifelong imprisonment or other consequences for deportees. The case represents a significant test of executive power in immigration enforcement and the extent to which centuries-old laws can be applied to modern national security concerns.