In a sharply worded dissent, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito—joined by Justice Clarence Thomas—criticized what he described as a reckless and legally questionable decision by the Court’s liberal majority to halt President Donald Trump’s lawful use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport dangerous foreign nationals.
The Supreme Court issued an unsigned, late-night emergency order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from deporting individuals held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas. The detainees are allegedly linked to Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan gang, and were set for removal under the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act.
The order says, in part:
There is before the Court an application on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible.
The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a). Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent from the Court’s order. Statement from Justice Alito to follow.
The ruling was made in response to a swift emergency appeal from the ACLU on behalf of a proposed class of noncitizen detainees. Per the ACLU, “Plaintiffs learned that the government has begun giving notices of removal to class members, in English only, which do not say how much time individuals have to contest their removal or even how to do so… And officers last night told class members that they will be removed within 24 hours, which expires as early as this afternoon. Upon information and belief, individuals have already been loaded on to buses.”
In a fiery dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito sharply criticized the Court’s liberal majority, condemning their last-minute injunction as both legally dubious and procedurally inconsistent. “Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order,” Alito wrote.
“I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law,” he added. “The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trumpv. J.G.G., 604 U. S. (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures.”
Alito argued that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction only if the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction first—and that the Fifth Circuit could only act if the challenged order was a denial of a preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining order (TRO). Alito made clear that left-leaning groups like the ACLU were, in his view, manipulating the legal process by appealing a decision that hadn’t been formally denied. According to Alito, the Supreme Court took the bait—undermining precedent and basic legal procedure.
He noted that the emergency request wasn’t based on an actual, appealable ruling. Rather, the ACLU claimed the district court had effectively denied their request simply by not acting quickly enough. “This Court had jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of the applicants’ appeal, and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction only if the supposed order that the applicants appealed amounted to the denial of a preliminary injunction,” Alito wrote.
Alito stated that the Supreme Court intervened before the Fifth Circuit had the opportunity to weigh in, which disrupts the typical hierarchy of judicial review. “When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief, and we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming. This Court, however, refused to wait,” he said. Alito slammed the majority for violating the Court’s own Rule 23.3, which requires seeking relief in lower courts first “except in the most extraordinary circumstances.”