Fact check: Did SCOTUS allow Trump to use the Alien Enemies act in April 2025

1. Summary of the results

The question about whether SCOTUS allowed Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act in April 2025 reveals a complex and evolving legal situation with contradictory outcomes over time.

Initial April 2025 Decision:

Yes, the Supreme Court initially allowed Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act in April 2025. Multiple sources confirm that on April 7, 2025, SCOTUS granted the president's request to enforce the act, allowing for the rapid deportation of alleged gang members ^{[1] [2]}. The official Supreme Court decision specifically permitted the Trump administration to use the Alien Enemies Act to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua ^[3].

Subsequent May 2025 Reversal:

However, the situation dramatically changed in May 2025. By May 17, 2025, the Supreme Court barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport Venezuelans ^[4]. This later ruling confirmed that the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, citing violation of due process rights ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question fails to capture several critical aspects of this legal saga:

Due Process Concerns:

Even in the initial April approval, the Court emphasized that individuals subject to removal under the Act are entitled to judicial review and due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard ^[3]. The Court stressed the importance of providing notice and an opportunity for review to those subject to the act ^[2].

Judicial Dissent:

The April decision faced significant internal opposition. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson argued that the Court's decision poses a threat to the rule of law and due process ^[3]. Some justices believed the Court's decision was premature and may pose a threat to the rule of law and the rights of the detainees ^[6].

Evolving Legal Standards:

The Supreme Court's May ruling established that individuals held under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to due process while refraining from defining the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case ^[7].

Beneficiaries of Different Narratives:

• Trump administration officials would benefit from emphasizing the initial April approval to demonstrate executive authority
• Civil rights organizations and immigration advocates would benefit from highlighting the May reversal to show constitutional protections prevailed
• Venezuelan nationals and their legal representatives directly benefited from the May decision protecting their due process rights

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains significant temporal bias by focusing only on April 2025 without acknowledging the complete legal timeline. This creates a misleading impression that could be exploited by:

Selective Timeline Presentation:

The question implies a simple yes/no answer when the reality involves two contradictory Supreme Court decisions within six weeks of each other. Someone asking only about April 2025 might be attempting to present an incomplete picture that serves their political narrative.

Omission of Constitutional Issues:

The question ignores the fundamental due process violations that ultimately led to the May reversal ^[5]. This omission could mislead audiences into believing the Alien Enemies Act usage was constitutionally sound throughout the period.

Missing Gang-Specific Context:

The question doesn't specify that the initial approval was specifically targeted at alleged members of Tren de Aragua ^[3], which could lead to broader misinterpretations about the scope of the Act's application.

The most accurate answer requires acknowledging both the temporary April approval and the subsequent May prohibition, along with the ongoing constitutional concerns that shaped both decisions.