Fact check: Is the Alien Enemies Act still being used by the Trump administration since SCOTUS blocked its use for deportation?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the Supreme Court has indeed blocked the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, but the legal landscape remains complex and evolving. Multiple sources confirm that the Supreme Court granted an emergency petition to halt deportations under this act ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Specifically, the Court barred the administration from using the act to quickly deport Venezuelans ^[2] and ruled that individuals held under the act are entitled to due process and "reasonable notice" ^[5].

However, lower federal courts have issued conflicting rulings. A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled that Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan citizens who are members of the Tren de Aragua gang, though the notice provided was deemed "constitutionally deficient" ^[6]. Conversely, an El Paso federal judge ruled that Trump acted unlawfully when applying the act to alleged Venezuelan gang members, stating that the president cannot unilaterally define what constitutes an invasion ^[7].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context:

• The legal challenges are specifically focused on Venezuelan nationals and alleged gang members, particularly those associated with Tren de Aragua, rather than a blanket prohibition on all uses of the act ^{[6] [7] [5]}
• Due process concerns are central to the court rulings - the Supreme Court emphasized that individuals are entitled to proper notice and procedural protections, but notably "did not address the underlying merits of the parties' claims or the constitutional legitimacy of removals under the AEA" ^[5]
• Different federal district courts have reached opposing conclusions, creating a patchwork of rulings that may require further Supreme Court clarification (p2_s1 vs p2_s2)
• The definition of "invasion" is a key legal battleground - courts are grappling with whether the president has unilateral authority to determine what constitutes an invasion under the 1798 act ^[7]

Immigration advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations would benefit from the complete blocking of the act, as it would prevent what they view as unconstitutional mass deportations. Conversely, the Trump administration and immigration hardliners would benefit from broader acceptance of the act's use, as it would provide expedited removal procedures bypassing traditional immigration courts.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an oversimplified premise that suggests a complete, uniform blocking of the Alien Enemies Act by SCOTUS. The reality is more nuanced - while the Supreme Court has halted certain uses and mandated due process protections ^[5], lower courts continue to issue conflicting rulings on specific applications of the act ^{[6] [7]}.

The question also fails to specify the targeted populations (primarily Venezuelan nationals and alleged gang members) and omits the ongoing legal complexity surrounding what constitutes proper notice and due process under the act. This framing could mislead readers into believing there's a clear, final resolution when the legal situation remains fluid and contested across multiple jurisdictions.