Constitutional scholars warn that the justices’ brief order leaves unresolved key questions about the legal authority behind Trump’s actions.
In a stunning late-night intervention, the Supreme Court temporarily halted the Trump administration’s efforts to deport dozens of Texas detainees, leaving their fate hanging in the balance Saturday.
The court did not explain its reasoning in its unsigned emergency order issued about 1 a.m., but it did tell the Trump administration “not to remove any member of the putative class of prisoners” from the United States until further action by the Supreme Court. Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented.
Experts say the Supreme Court’s bold intervention in the high-stakes deportation battle signals an aggressive move—but caution that the order sidesteps critical questions about Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to expel migrants from the U.S.
Georgetown Law professor Steve Vladeck called the Supreme Court’s involvement overnight “a sign that a majority of the justices have lost their patience with the procedural games being played by the Trump administration,” at least as it relates to the cases involving the Alien Enemies Act.
Earlier this month, a divided Supreme Court allowed the administration to press forward with using the Alien Enemies Act to target alleged gang members for deportation—but in a rare moment of unanimity, the justices insisted detainees must be given a chance to challenge their detention in the jurisdictions where they’re held.
The Supreme Court’s latest order came after hours of frantic litigation Friday, when attorneys for the detainees petitioned courts in North Texas and Washington, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, hoping that one of them would intervene to halt the deportations before it was too late.
In its early Saturday order, the Supreme Court signaled it would wait for the 5th Circuit’s ruling before taking further action. It directed the solicitor general—the federal government’s top lawyer—to respond to the ACLU’s claims after the appellate court weighed in. Almost simultaneously, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit denied the ACLU’s emergency bid to halt the deportations, sharply rebuking the organization’s attorneys for bypassing the lower court.
Legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted it was striking that the justices acted before the 5th Circuit had ruled—highlighting, as he wrote in his Saturday newsletter, ‘how seriously the court, or at least the majority of it, took the urgency of the matter.’ In a swift response to the Supreme Court’s order, the Trump administration filed a motion Saturday evening, urging the justices to dismiss the ACLU’s request.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer pushed back hard, urging the Supreme Court to stand down and let the lower courts resolve the legal battle first. He claimed the government had already agreed to pause deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and insisted the detainees had received ‘sufficient notice and time’ to challenge their removal—despite growing concerns from civil rights groups over rushed procedures and lack of due process.
Sauer downplayed the scope of the Court’s initial order, asserting it ‘did not mandate any specific notice procedure,’ and warned that the justices should not be the first to weigh in on unresolved legal and factual questions. Notably, he pointed out that some of the detainees—many of whom are alleged gang members—face deportation under separate legal authorities not even at issue in the current case.
In a closing appeal that sparked alarm among advocates, Sauer asked the Court to ‘ensure that the government can continue conducting lawful and unchallenged removals,’ a phrase critics say underscores the administration’s push to sidestep judicial scrutiny while vulnerable individuals remain in legal limbo.
The White House has doubled down on its defense of President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, insisting that those facing deportation are members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Just hours before the Supreme Court’s emergency ruling, Trump posted videos on Truth Social allegedly showing migrants being handed off by U.S. military personnel to Salvadoran authorities—then transported to CECOT, the infamous megaprison in El Salvador known for its brutal conditions.
In the wake of the Court’s late-night intervention, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt framed the administration’s actions as the fulfillment of a core campaign promise.
“We are confident in the lawfulness of the Administration’s actions and in ultimately prevailing against an onslaught of meritless litigation brought by radical activists who care more about the rights of terrorist aliens than those of the American people,” Leavitt said in a defiant statement.
Aziz Z. Huq, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Chicago, warned against overinterpreting the Supreme Court’s interim order, noting that it skirts the core legal question: whether Trump truly has the authority to invoke wartime powers to deport alleged gang members.
Still, Huq said the message was clear—the Court is reinforcing its previous stance that due process and proper notice are non-negotiable, even in high-stakes immigration cases. That principle was at the heart of the controversy surrounding Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland resident who was wrongly deported last month in apparent defiance of court orders.
Despite the Supreme Court directing the administration to treat Abrego García’s case ‘as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,’ Trump officials have dragged their feet. After briefly admitting the deportation was a mistake, they pivoted—labeling him a dangerous gang member and claiming they lack the authority to bring him back to the U.S.
“This is a troubling sign,” Huq said, “of a government not only pushing legal boundaries but ignoring them outright when politically convenient.
In January, Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, setting into motion a wave of extraordinary legal and military maneuvers. As part of that declaration, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and former Army officer Pete Hegseth were given 90 days to deliver a report justifying further action. Among the powers now looming over the crisis is the Insurrection Act—a rarely invoked 19th-century statute that could grant Trump sweeping authority to deploy active-duty military forces on U.S. soil to enforce immigration laws.
The mere possibility of invoking such powers has alarmed legal experts and civil rights advocates, who warn it could escalate tensions and undermine constitutional norms.
Reporting for this story was contributed by Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and Ben Brasch.