The U.S. Supreme Court has once again cleared the way for one of President Donald Trump’s most assertive immigration policies, mass deportation, demonstrating its continued readiness to support his hardline stance, albeit with some caution regarding implementation. Though the court has facilitated certain aspects of the administration’s actions, it has also set boundaries where constitutional protections are at risk.
Since Trump resumed office in January, the justices have been drawn repeatedly into emergency legal disputes surrounding his sweeping immigration agenda. The most recent development saw the high court permitting the administration to rescind temporary legal protections extended to hundreds of thousands of migrants under President Joe Biden, while litigation proceeds in lower courts.
On Friday, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction that had blocked the revocation of immigration “parole” for over 500,000 migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. Just days earlier, on May 19, it allowed the administration to proceed with ending “temporary protected status” for more than 300,000 Venezuelans.
Yet, the court has not granted the administration carte blanche. In several rulings, the justices have underscored the importance of due process, ensuring that migrants receive fair treatment under the U.S. Constitution.
“This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,” said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis.
No president in modern history “has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,” Johnson added.
This legal tension has placed the Supreme Court in a role of defining the constitutional boundaries of executive power, rather than consistently ruling on the legality of Trump’s policies themselves. With a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three Trump appointees, the court has offered mixed responses.
“President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president’s authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump’s promises,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters.
Twice—in rulings issued on April 7 and May 16—the court curtailed the administration’s attempts to use the rarely invoked 1798 Alien Enemies Act to fast-track deportations of Venezuelan migrants allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang. These claims have been challenged by lawyers and relatives of the accused migrants.
Additionally, on May 16, the court ruled that the administration’s process for deporting detainees in Texas fell short of constitutional standards. Providing migrants “notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the justices wrote.
Due process, a cornerstone of U.S. law, requires the government to offer notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking serious actions against individuals.
While the justices have not yet decided whether the Alien Enemies Act may be lawfully used in the current context, the court’s historical lens is notable. The law was last employed during World War II to detain and deport individuals of Japanese, German, and Italian descent.
“The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School’s immigrants’ rights clinic.
Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court “has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States.”
A Wrongly Deported Man
In a separate ruling on April 10, the court instructed the administration to facilitate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant previously residing in Maryland, who had been mistakenly deported to El Salvador. The administration has acknowledged the error but has yet to return him to the U.S.—a delay some legal experts interpret as defiance of the Supreme Court.
Abrego Garcia was among over 200 individuals deported to El Salvador on March 15. Many of these deportees were detained in the country’s large anti-terrorism prison, under a $6 million U.S.-funded agreement with President Nayib Bukele’s government.
Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, noted that the court has attempted to restrain “more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies” while preserving traditional deference to executive authority in immigration.
“I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,” said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. “But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.”
The court’s deference was particularly evident in its recent unsigned orders allowing the administration to strip protected status and humanitarian parole from over 800,000 migrants—decisions delivered without explanation.
“Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,” Mukherjee said. “Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they’re deported, possibly even losing their lives.”
Previous Precedents and New Frontiers
Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2021, was similarly defined by aggressive immigration actions. In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld his controversial travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations. But two years later, it blocked his attempt to terminate the DACA program, which shields undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children—commonly referred to as “Dreamers.”
Now, the justices are weighing new cases, including Trump’s move to reinterpret the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. The administration argues that not all babies born on U.S. soil should automatically gain citizenship, challenging long-standing legal interpretations. The court heard arguments on May 15 but has not yet issued a ruling.
Another pending case involves the administration’s attempt to deport migrants to third countries, including volatile regions like war-torn South Sudan. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, based in Boston, ruled that such transfers require notification and an opportunity for migrants to present evidence of the dangers they might face.
Murphy determined on May 21 that the administration had violated this requirement by proceeding with deportations to South Sudan. Those affected are currently held at a military base in Djibouti.
The administration asked the Supreme Court on May 27 to overturn Murphy’s order, asserting that third-country removals are vital for deporting migrants with criminal records, especially when their home countries refuse repatriation.
Still, Johnson anticipates that the court will rule in favor of the migrants.
“I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,” Johnson said.
