In a pivotal ruling that affirms both presidential authority and the rule of law, the U.S. Supreme Court has greenlit the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. The 5-4 decision marks not just a legal victory for Trump—it’s a defining moment in the battle between constitutional governance and activist lawfare.
Let’s be crystal clear: this wasn’t about partisan politics. It was about national security, the rights of American citizens to feel safe in their own communities, and a president’s constitutional power to act in times of crisis. And once again, Trump did what others wouldn’t—he enforced the law while the Left did everything in its power to protect criminals.
The Left’s Selective Outrage: Cry for Criminals, Not Victims
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), true to form, rushed to court to defend a group of Venezuelan men allegedly tied to the Tren de Aragua gang—one of the most violent criminal organizations in Latin America. These aren’t misunderstood teens or political refugees. These are individuals suspected of torture, trafficking, and murder.
And yet the Left would rather chant “no deportations” than remember Laken Riley, a young woman brutally murdered—allegedly by someone who should never have been in this country in the first place. Her name, her life, and her family deserve justice. But where is the ACLU’s lawsuit for her?
Instead, they’re up in arms over a law that’s been on the books since 1798—a law designed explicitly for moments like this.
1798 Law, 2025 Common Sense: Trump Uses the Tools the Founders Gave Him
Let’s talk about that law for a second. The Alien Enemies Act was passed during John Adams’ presidency—when the Founders still walked the halls of power. It gives the president authority to detain or deport individuals from foreign nations deemed a threat during times of war or invasion.
Trump invoked that law on March 15, after ICE detained several alleged gang members from Venezuela. The law isn’t some obscure, dusty relic. It was used to detain enemy aliens during both World Wars. If anything, this moment proves the Founders’ foresight in preparing future presidents to defend the homeland.
And yet, the Left pretends it’s unconstitutional—because it’s Trump using it. If a Democrat president invoked the same statute to remove right-wing extremists from Norway, they’d throw a parade on MSNBC.
Judge Shopping, Border Chaos, and the ACLU Circus
This case exposed the ugly underbelly of modern liberal legal strategy: judge shopping. When activists don’t get their way through elections or legislation, they run to friendly judges in D.C., hoping for last-minute injunctions.
That’s exactly what happened here. Judge James Boasberg, appointed by Obama and operating out of Washington, D.C., blocked Trump’s deportations—even though the detainees were held in Texas.
Boasberg’s move wasn’t about justice. It was about sabotaging Trump’s efforts to enforce the law. The Supreme Court saw through it and ruled, correctly, that legal challenges must be filed where the detainees are held—not wherever the Left finds a sympathetic bench.
Even worse, the Biden-era Justice Department tried to claim that Trump violated Boasberg’s oral order by not turning around two deportation flights. The reality? The planes had already left U.S. airspace by the time Boasberg’s written order came through. The law doesn’t bend to a judge’s off-the-cuff remarks in a courtroom—it follows due process.
Media Spin and the Truth They Refuse to Print
Predictably, mainstream outlets like The Guardian are framing this ruling as Trump exploiting “wartime powers” to attack vulnerable migrants. But where is their concern for the Americans harmed by gang violence? Where is their analysis of the Venezuelan family members of victims of Tren de Aragua? The truth is inconvenient, so they ignore it.
One man already deported was a soccer coach with a Real Madrid tattoo—a symbol authorities mistook for a gang marking. His story is the exception, not the rule, but it’s the one the media clings to in order to smear Trump and ICE.
The real story? Hundreds of suspected gang members are no longer walking U.S. streets, thanks to this ruling and Trump’s refusal to back down.
The Bigger Picture: Safety Over Ideology
This ruling wasn’t just a legal win—it was a reaffirmation of national sovereignty. It sent a clear message: the president of the United States has the authority—and the responsibility—to protect this country.
The Supreme Court, despite its own internal divides, recognized that judicial activism cannot replace constitutional authority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh made it clear: all nine justices agree that detainees can seek review—but that review must happen in the proper venue, not in some distant court cherry-picked by political operatives.
This is how the system is supposed to work.
Final Thoughts
This battle is far from over. The ACLU is already filing new lawsuits in New York and other venues, desperate to stall deportations. But thanks to this ruling, the days of soft-on-crime judges derailing border enforcement may finally be numbered.
President Trump stood firm. He used the law. He defended the American people when others were too afraid to act.
Let’s hope the rest of Washington starts following his lead.
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.
JIMMY
Find more articles like this at steadfastandloyal.com.
h/t: Steadfast and Loyal
Leave a Comment