In a significant development, US military personnel escorted an alleged gang member, alongside others purportedly linked to the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua and the notorious MS-13 gang, to be imprisoned at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) located at the El Salvador International Airport in San Luis Talpa, El Salvador. This event was reported on April 12, 2025, highlighting the ongoing complexities surrounding immigration enforcement and the legal ramifications of deportation in the United States.

On Saturday, the US Supreme Court issued a stay on the Trump administration's controversial deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, invoking an obscure law from the late 18th century. Specifically, the justices paused the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a law rarely used since its inception and previously applied only during major historical conflicts such as the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

President Donald Trump had recently utilized this archaic law to initiate the expulsion of Venezuelan migrants accused of affiliation with the Tren de Aragua gang, proposing to send them to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. The Supreme Court's brief order, released early Saturday, directed the government to refrain from removing any individual classified as part of this group until the court issues further orders.

This legal intervention came in response to urgent appeals filed by rights lawyers aiming to halt the deportations of migrants currently detained at a facility in southern Texas. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lodged an emergency application on Friday, expressing that a group of Venezuelans held in Texas was informed they would be deported imminently under the AEA.

In a troubling twist, attorneys representing several deported Venezuelans asserted that their clients had not been involved with Tren de Aragua, had committed no crimes, and were being targeted primarily based on their tattoos, which are often misinterpreted as gang affiliations. This raises serious questions about the criteria being used to identify individuals for deportation.

Throughout his presidency, Trump has maintained a hardline stance on immigration, claiming that Venezuela is "perpetrating an invasion" of the United States by allowing alleged gang members to cross its borders. The Supreme Court had earlier clarified that individuals facing deportation under the AEA must first have the chance to legally contest their removal.

The ACLU's emergency filing depicted a critical situation, warning that the migrants in Texas faced the risk of being removed without adequate notice or an opportunity to present their cases. The ACLU indicated that many individuals had already boarded buses, presumably destined for the airport, signaling a rapid and troubling escalation in the deportation process.

Should the deportations proceed, they would mark the first removals under the AEA since the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 ruling that permitted deportations while stipulating that affected individuals must be given notice within a reasonable timeframe. This notice is crucial, as it allows them to seek habeas corpus reliefa fundamental right under US law that enables detainees to challenge the legality of their detention.

However, the Supreme Court did not specify how much notice should be provided, leading to calls from lawyers nationwide for a minimum of 30 days' notice to afford migrants adequate time to contest their deportations. As of now, the Trump administration has not publicly clarified how much notice it intends to provide to those facing deportation.

This entire situation reflects ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy in the United States, as well as the broader implications of using antiquated laws to address contemporary issues regarding migration and crime.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP and Reuters)