New immigration case arrives to a Supreme Court that appears wary of Trump’s deportation policies

The U.S. Supreme Court now faces a major test of its trust in President Donald Trump’s second-term immigration agenda. At the heart of the dispute: a case involving deportations to South Sudan and other third-party countries with little warning or recourse for the migrants involved.

The case, brought to the Court on Tuesday, stems from the Trump administration’s push to remove migrants—some with no connection to South Sudan—to unstable regions. A federal judge in Boston ruled last week that the administration “unquestionably” violated his court order by proceeding with deportation flights.

The judge, Brian Murphy, condemned the lack of notice and opportunity for migrants to challenge their removal. “To be clear,” Murphy wrote, “the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process.”

At least some deported migrants were flown to a U.S. military base in Djibouti, including individuals from Vietnam, Mexico, and Laos. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed they all had criminal records, though the nature of the offenses remains unspecified.

Justices Press for Clarity

During Supreme Court arguments on May 15, several conservative justices voiced concerns over the administration’s stance on judicial authority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett sharply questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer about the administration’s willingness to obey court rulings.

“You would respect the opinions and judgment of the Supreme Court,” Barrett asked directly. Sauer affirmed, “That is correct.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised similar questions, referencing the administration’s own brief which acknowledged that Supreme Court decisions are binding nationwide. “You agree with that?” he asked. Sauer again confirmed.

Despite their ideological alignment with many of Trump’s policies, the justices have begun to show signs of discomfort. In particular, the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act—a law dating to the 18th century—has drawn sharp scrutiny.

Alien Enemies Act Raises Due Process Alarms

Trump has used the Alien Enemies Act to justify fast-tracked deportations of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang ties. But on May 16, a bipartisan group of justices froze such deportations and ordered further hearings. The Court cited a lack of due process and poor notice to the detainees.

Lawyers for the migrants had argued the administration moved detainees to airports without allowing time to contest the decisions. In their ruling, the justices noted the administration may have been trying to act before courts could intervene.

“Had the detainees been removed… the Government may have argued… that no U.S. court had jurisdiction to order relief,” the unsigned opinion read. Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The Court’s concerns deepened with the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March. The justices ordered his return on April 10. But the administration has yet to comply. Legal experts say that delay has further eroded the Court’s confidence.

Birthright Citizenship Also Under Fire

Another major issue facing the Court involves Trump’s move to eliminate birthright citizenship. That right has existed since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and was reaffirmed in an 1898 Supreme Court ruling.

Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office to end it for children born to undocumented migrants. Lower court judges quickly blocked the move using nationwide injunctions, a legal tool that applies beyond the immediate parties in a lawsuit.

Some justices have previously criticized nationwide injunctions as overreach. But now, even conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether inconsistent state policies on citizenship would create a “patchwork” of legal rights.

Justice Elena Kagan warned of chaos. “Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?” she asked.

A Court Torn Between Power and Precedent

The justices have long supported expanding executive power. Just last week, they ruled 6-3 in favor of giving the president more authority over federal agencies. But when that power touches on constitutional guarantees like due process or citizenship, cracks appear.

“The government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law,” liberal justices wrote in one opinion. That rare warning underscores how far the Court’s patience may be stretched.

The Court’s decision in the coming weeks may reveal whether its emerging doubts will reshape the Trump administration’s immigration plans—or simply delay them.

‍