US Supreme Court temporarily halts deportations of migrants

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

The US Supreme Court has temporarily barred Donald Trump from using a rarely-used law dating back to the 18th century to deport a group of Venezuelan migrants

The country’s highest court said in the early hours of Saturday that the government was “directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until a further order of this court”.

The Trump administration has been attempting to remove alleged members of a Venezuelan gang using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798,  a law last invoked during the second world war to intern non-US citizens of Italian, German and Japanese descent.

Two of the court’s nine judges, conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from the majority ruling.

Lawyers for the migrants, who are being held in a Texas prison, expressed relief at the decision.

“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,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, who is a lead counsel in the case.

Several alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang were deported to a jail in El Salvador last month, despite a court order blocking their deportations.

Lower court judge James Boasberg had issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration’s attempts to deport the alleged gang members. The order prompted President Donald Trump to call for his impeachment.

The alleged gang members were flown to El Salvador despite Boasberg’s ruling that the planes they were on should be turned around.

“We are relieved that the Supreme Court has not permitted the administration to whisk them away, the way others were just last month,” Gelernt said.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court lifted the freeze on deportations in a 5-4 vote that was seen as a win for the White House.

However, that judgment did not rule on Trump’s attempt to use the long-standing legislation. Instead it was a narrow order saying that the Venezuelan men who sought to challenge Trump had filed their lawsuit in the wrong jurisdiction.

Related Posts

EY accused of ‘serious’ failings in audits of collapsed NMC Health

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter. The UK accounting watchdog identified “extremely serious” failings in EY’s…

Read more

Trump leaves Russia and Ukraine to settle war in talks

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world Donald Trump said on Monday that Russia and…

Read more

US borrowing costs climb after Moody’s downgrade

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world US long-term borrowing costs climbed to their highest…

Read more

Rise in loans to US non-bank financial groups raises systemic risk fears

Stay informed with free updates Simply sign up to the US banks myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox. US bank lending to buyout firms and private credit groups…

Read more

UBS deploys AI analyst clones as clients opt for research in video form

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter. UBS has started using artificial intelligence to turn its analysts…

Read more

Pro-EU centrist wins Romanian presidency in stunning reversal

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter. Pro-EU centrist Nicuşor Dan won Romania’s presidential run-off on Sunday,…

Read more

Leave a Reply