Supreme Court Deportation Ruling Lets Both Sides Claim a Win

Opinion for The Latino Newsletter

By Rebecca Hamlin and Paul M. Collins Jr., Originally published at The Conversation

President Donald Trump has claimed victory at the Supreme Court in his campaign to deport Venezuelan migrants accused by the government of being part of a foreign terrorist organization.

“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself,” Trump posted on April 7, 2025, calling it, “A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!”

A 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court had just overruled a lower court that had temporarily barred the deportations, deciding the U.S. could move ahead with its plans to send those Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

Eight minutes after Trump’s post, the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward, and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, three advocacy groups that represented the Venezuelan nationals in the case, also claimed the decision was a win.

In a press release, lawyers from these organizations said that the case was “an important victory” in which the court determined that the “Trump administration acted unlawfully when it removed people from this nation with no process.”

Can both sides legitimately say they won a Supreme Court victory?

As professors of legal studies, we study the Supreme Court, including how the court approaches cases involving immigration law and presidential power.

Here’s why both sides are claiming a win in the case known as Trump v. J.G.G., what the court’s opinion actually said, and what you can take away from it.

Why Both Sides Are Claiming Victory

The complexity of the court’s per curiam opinion —an unsigned opinion of a majority of the court— allows the Trump administration and the ACLU to view the ruling in Trump v. J.G.G. from different perspectives.

This has led them both to claim victory.

Trump sees the case as a win because the justices vacated a lower court decision that had temporarily barred the deportation of the Venezuelans. This means that the federal government was victorious in the case: His administration does not have to immediately stop deporting Venezuelan nationals.

At the same time, the ACLU claims the case is a victory for them because the Supreme Court’s opinion said that the government must give people the opportunity to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act, which the government had not done. The Venezuelans’ right to due process was one of the key arguments advanced by the ACLU and its partners.

On April 9, judges in New York and Texas agreed, just two days after the Supreme Court’s decision, temporarily halting the deportation of five Venezuelans until the government can clarify what type of notice it will be giving to people it intends to deport.

Eventually, the Supreme Court will need to speak definitively about whether the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport those it alleges to be part of a foreign terrorist organization. The court has not yet addressed that issue.

This means the court will have to deal with some tricky questions down the road. These include whether a drug cartel can be said to be engaging in an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” into the United States, which the Alien Enemies Act requires if it is to be invoked. Another issue is the extent to which the Alien Enemies Act can be used when Congress hasn’t declared war.

And a big unanswered question is whether the Supreme Court, or any court, should even answer these questions at all. The political questions doctrine, which dates to 1803, is a principle saying that courts should avoid tackling thorny political questions that are best left to Congress or the president.

For more stories, visit The Conversation.

We want to keep The Latino Newsletter accessible without paywalls. To help, you can donate here. Any amount (one-time or monthly) will keep us going.

What We’re Reading

Losing the Information War: In an opinion piece for The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Immigration Hub co-executive director Beatriz Lopez shares how it’s important to center the current national debate with immigrant voices. (The paywall registration is free with a valid email.)

The Latino Newsletter welcomes opinion pieces in English and/or Spanish from community voices. Submission guidelines are here. The views expressed by outside opinion contributors do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of this outlet or its employees.