On Monday, April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a significant win for President Donald Trump, upholding his use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport illegal immigrants in a 5-4 decision. This ruling strengthens Trump’s hand in tackling the border crisis, affirming his authority to act decisively. Yet the narrow margin—marked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberal justices—has left conservatives uneasy. This wasn’t supposed to be a close decision, but Barrett’s dissent leads conservatives to question what other cases might be in jeopardy.
The Alien Enemies Act, which has been in effect since 1798, empowers the President to detain and remove non-citizens during wartime or national emergencies. Trump invoked it to target illegals, especially criminals, amid a border mess left by years of the border being overrun.
Under Biden, the Border Patrol logged over 10 million encounters from 2021 to 2024, peaking at 2.5 million in 2023 alone. Today, crossings are down to 7,800 monthly, compared to 155,000 under Biden. That is an astonishing 95% drop, all due to Trump’s strong America First policies.
This crackdown has led the left into a panic, with prominent figures like Rachel Maddow claiming, “This is panic-inducing for anyone who cares about human rights.”
In fact, when Border Czar Tom Homan was criticized for using the AEA to protect our country because it was an “old law,” he aptly replied, “An old law? Not as old as the Constitution. We still pay attention to that, don’t we?” Watch the exchange here.
Nonetheless, the left attempted to undermine the rule of law by rewriting it through the courts. Thankfully, the court recognized the law’s Constitutionality- but only barely.
The Supreme Court’s majority—Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh pointed to clear precedence. Their opinion notes that the Act was used during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, including FDR’s internment of Japanese aliens. A mass migration of hostile military-aged men into the interior is not any less of a threat to national security.
The majority emphasized executive authority under Article II, bolstered by the Act’s text: “Whenever there is a declared war… or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated… all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation… may be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.” That’s broad and allows Trump the full scope of authority intended under the Act. The opinion also rejected claims that it was outdated, affirming Trump’s emergency powers for this crisis. It’s the correct ruling: the border is a national security issue, and the President must be allowed to act. The ruling’s impact is immediate. ICE can target the illegals with criminal records—MS-13, Tren de Aragua, you name it—without endless court delays.
In addition to being the correct legal ruling, this is also exactly what the American people voted for. A rejection of Trump’s authority would have been yet another case of the courts attempting to become the supreme branch of government. Initially, District Judge Boasberg had attempted to do just that. Despite that effort to thwart the administration, the country is walking away with a win—this time.
But Barrett’s dissent casts a shadow. Joining Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she argued the Act’s scope doesn’t cover this border crisis—war or invasion only, not immigration surges. Sotomayor’s dissent warned of “an extraordinary threat to the rule of law,” but Barrett focused narrower, critiquing the court’s rush to rule. The problem is that this is not an ambiguous issue. The Constitution backs Trump’s move, and Barrett’s flip on a clear-cut issue stings. It also is not the first time. She recently sided with the liberal bloc to side against Trump’s freezing of foreign aid.
The left will undoubtedly seek to obstruct every aspect possible of the America First agenda through the courts. If she wavers on constitutional bedrock, what’s next when the left floods courts with challenges? The ACLU’s already gearing up, and a shaky justice could unravel Trump’s gains and put the country at risk.
This victory’s a start, not the end. And it makes what needs to happen next clear. Congress must lock in these powers and the rest of Trump’s executive orders. The best way to fight back is for Congress to get in the game and enshrine the agenda into law. This will reign in lower court judges who seek to obstruct and make room for more conservative rulings from the Supreme Court. Barrett’s drift from a clear constitutional call isn’t fatal, but it’s a warning: Trump’s agenda hinges on resolve, and it is time to act.
