Per curiam opinion holds habeas is exclusive remedy; Sotomayor issues sharp dissent accusing government of circumventing due process
In a per curiam opinion issued April 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated two temporary restraining orders (TROs) that had halted the removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of the group Tren de Aragua (TdA), reinstating the federal government’s ability to deport them under President Trump’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The Court did not rule on the legality of the Proclamation itself but concluded that detainees must challenge their removal via habeas corpus in the districts of their confinement—in this case, South Texas—rather than in the District of Columbia.
The orders vacated by the Court had been issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 15 and extended March 28, pausing deportations of five named plaintiffs and a provisionally certified class of noncitizens subject to the March 14 Proclamation. That Proclamation, invoking the AEA, targeted “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States” (90 Fed. Reg. 13034).
The detainees had argued they were not members of TdA and were entitled to individualized due process protections before removal. All were already in federal immigration detention under statutes unrelated to the AEA prior to the Proclamation, according to Justice Sotomayor’s dissent.
The Supreme Court concluded that although the plaintiffs did not seek release from custody, their legal claims nonetheless “necessarily imply the invalidity” of their confinement and removal under the AEA. As such, the Court ruled, their claims fall within the “core” of habeas corpus and must be brought in the district where they are held. The Court also emphasized that the detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to seek habeas relief before removal.
Justice Sotomayor, joined in full by Justices Kagan and Jackson and in part by Justice Barrett, issued a detailed dissent. She criticized the Court’s intervention on the eve of a scheduled April 8 hearing on a preliminary injunction, arguing the Court had acted with “barebones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection.” While all nine justices agreed that the detainees must receive notice and judicial review, Sotomayor contended the Court should have deferred to the lower court proceedings rather than summarily vacating the TROs.
In Part II of her dissent, Sotomayor traced the history and context of the Alien Enemies Act. She described the President’s March 14 Proclamation as “unprecedented,” noting that the Act had previously only been invoked during formal wartime—such as the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. She argued that applying the Act in peacetime to deport individuals to a foreign prison without hearings “raises profound constitutional concerns.”
Sotomayor further described the government\’s actions leading up to the Proclamation as an effort to preempt judicial review. She wrote that “covert preparation” began before the Proclamation was even published, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement relocating detainees to a South Texas facility in apparent anticipation of swift deportation. The plaintiffs were allegedly pulled from their cells the night the Proclamation was released and told they would be deported the next day, without access to lawyers or knowledge of where they were being sent.
The dissent documented that dozens of individuals were deported directly into El Salvador’s high-security CECOT prison complex. Plaintiffs alleged that they were neither members of TdA nor involved in any criminal activity, and that their tattoos or mere presence at social gatherings had been cited as evidence of gang affiliation. Sotomayor warned that deportations without hearings posed life-threatening risks: “CECOT detainees are frequently denied communication with their relatives and lawyers,” she wrote, citing evidence that hundreds have died in Salvadoran prisons since 2022.
Justice Sotomayor also pointed to the government’s refusal to comply with oral court orders to return planes that were airborne when the TRO was issued. “Rather than turn around the planes… the Federal Government landed [them] full of alleged Venezuelan nationals in El Salvador,” she wrote, adding that the government later argued in court that oral rulings were not binding.
Justice Jackson, writing separately, echoed concerns about the Court’s use of its emergency docket to resolve what she called a “monumental issue” without argument or briefing. “This fly-by-night approach… is also dangerous,” she wrote. Justice Barrett joined Parts II and III–B of Sotomayor’s dissent, expressing partial alignment with procedural concerns raised over the majority’s decision.
While the ruling allows deportations to resume, it reaffirms that detainees must receive notice and an opportunity to file habeas petitions in the proper venue. The Court made clear that deportations cannot proceed until that opportunity is given. The broader legal challenge to the President’s use of the Alien Enemies Act under these circumstances remains unresolved and is expected to proceed through the federal courts in Texas.