Trump angry: Supreme Court stops deportations - what does that mean for the USA?

Transparenz: Redaktionell erstellt und geprüft.
Veröffentlicht am

The article highlights Trump's reactions to the US Supreme Court's decision to stop deportations of Venezuelan immigrants and discusses the controversial Alien Enemies Act.

Der Artikel beleuchtet die Reaktionen von Trump zur Entscheidung des US-Obersten Gerichtshofs, die Abschiebungen venezolanischer Einwanderer zu stoppen und diskutiert den umstrittenen Alien Enemies Act.
The article highlights Trump's reactions to the US Supreme Court's decision to stop deportations of Venezuelan immigrants and discusses the controversial Alien Enemies Act.

Trump angry: Supreme Court stops deportations - what does that mean for the USA?

On May 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made an important decision that reignites the debate over the application of the Alien Enemies Act and the legal basis for immigrant deportations. The decision, which maintains a temporary halt on deportations, was heavily criticized by President Trump. Trump expressed outrage on social media and complained that the court did not allow “criminals to be taken out of the country.” Only two of the six conservative justices voted against the court's decision.

The use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798, was invoked by the Trump administration to quickly deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Meanwhile, lawyers argued that deportations should be halted while proceedings were ongoing because the government deported many men without judicial review. The Supreme Court made clear that the government can continue to carry out deportations under other provisions of U.S. immigration law, but ruled that the legal issues would be referred to a federal appeals court.

Background to the deportations

The Trump administration in recent months has deported hundreds of immigrants to El Salvador who the government says are members of Tren de Aragua, which U.S. authorities designate as a foreign terrorist organization. The deportations were met with strong criticism and legal disputes. A district court had previously temporarily blocked the deportations and demanded the return of deported migrants. According to the court, the authorities carried out the deportations without following a regular procedure and without properly informing those detained, raising serious concerns about the rule of law.

The German Press Agency reports that the US Treasury Department designated the gang a transnational criminal organization in July 2024, and the State Department followed with the terror assessment in February. As of March 15 this year, 238 names of deportees were released, with at least 137 deported under the Alien Enemies Act. District Judge James Boasberg expressed concerns about the secrecy of the deportations, noting that such actions raise legal questions outside of a wartime context.

The Alien Enemies Act in History

The Alien Enemies Act is one of the most controversial laws in US history. Originally introduced in 1798 during an undeclared war with France, it has since been used in various conflicts, including the British-American War, World War I and World War II. Historically, the law has often been applied in a discriminatory manner against certain nationalities. For example, during World War II, 120,000 Japanese Americans, many of them U.S. citizens, were interned in what was later recognized as a racially motivated overreaction.

In the current climate, Trump is relying on this legislation to justify his aggressive immigration policies, part of his campaign promise to “expel millions of undocumented immigrants.” However, experts point out that the application of the Alien Enemies Act is problematic since the US is not at war with Venezuela and criticize the associated violation of the rights of individuals, regardless of their nationality or ethnicity.

The developments of the last few days show how fundamental the debate about immigration and national security is in the USA. The coming legal steps will be crucial in determining what further measures the government can take and how the Supreme Court responds to this complex issue.