Due Process in the Age of Deportation: The Legal Divide Over Immigration

Demonstrators protesting President Trump’s immigration plans. Source: Doc’s Descriptions

IImmigration has been a long-contested issue in American law and politics. In fact, in recent years under the Trump administration(s), there have been significant crackdowns on immigration. Most recently, the current Trump administration has targeted Venezuelan immigrants and utilized wartime laws like the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite their deportations. However, federal judges in New York and Texas have pushed back against the administration, challenging their use of emergency powers by invoking these wartime laws. These legal conflicts reveal the balance of power between judicial and executive authority, all while exposing the tension and relationship between individual liberty and national security in the case of immigration. 

While the Trump administration has made a new immigration policy tactic by sending deportees to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), this is not the first time we have seen the Trump administration rely heavily on executive authority to enforce immigration. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Donald Trump invoked Title 42 — a public health law originally meant to control disease spread — and weaponized it to immediately expel migrants without allowing them to seek asylum. Venezuelan migrants fleeing economic collapse and political instability were among those affected. 

As of April 2025, the Trump administration has intensified its immigration enforcement measures, leading to significant legal (and ethical) debates. The Trump administration recently deported over 200 individuals, primarily Venezuelan immigrants, to the terrorism confinement center (CECOT) in El Salvador, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The administration argued that the deportees posed a threat to U.S. security due to their alleged ties to criminal networks. This controversial move not only underscores the federal government’s broad authority in matters relating to national security, but it also fuels legal conflicts between our federal branches of government and the idea of individual liberty. This has opened up the administration’s policy to criticisms of morality and constitutionality. 

The courts have responded forcefully to the abrupt deportation of hundreds of immigrants by the Trump administration. In Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found probable cause that Trump officials were in criminal contempt for ignoring a federal court order that explicitly halted the deportation of Venezuelan individuals under the Alien Enemies Act. Meanwhile, in the states of New York and Texas, courts ruled that deporting migrants without providing hearings or legal representation violates the constitutional right to due process, which is extended to non-citizens under the 14th Amendment. Most recently, around 1 a.m. on Saturday, April 19, 2025, the United States Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from deporting a second round of Venezuelan immigrants. This intervention by the Supreme Court underscores the vital role the courts play in maintaining a balance of power within the federal government while also defending individual constitutional rights. This ruling was a necessary check on executive authority, especially when that authority is utilizing national security to justify rash actions that risk violating civil liberties.

The Trump administration’s use of a wartime law to deport individuals to an El Salvadorian mega-prison has sparked legal pushback from judges in both Texas and New York, two states with opposing political views. Despite their differences, both of these judges and the Supreme Court have ruled that the Trump administration must stop its reckless deportation efforts. This reveals that concerns about federal overreach and violations of individual rights are no longer confined to one side of the political spectrum. What we are witnessing is a legal catastrophe perpetrated by Donald Trump and his administration. The only “clash” happening is the clear disregard for the law by the Trump administration and their continued non-compliance. This is no longer a partisan issue when we begin ignoring due process and violating the Constitution. 

Another issue that arises with Trump’s administration involves finding a balance between individual liberty and national security. In times of crisis, governments tend to err on the side of security. For example, during WWII, there was a mass internment of Japanese Americans, and after the 9/11 attacks, there was heightened surveillance, particularly of Muslim immigrants. Today, immigration is treated as a national security threat, where non-citizens often experience reduced protections. However, liberty should not be so easily dismissed. Deporting individuals to dangerous conditions or denying them hearings undermines the legal framework that defines our democracy. Unfortunately, it seems the standards we use to protect liberty in this country change when dealing with immigrants. This is a moral and legal failure. While national borders must be regulated, this should not come at the cost of constitutional accountability. The law should be applied consistently and fairly to everyone in the United States, regardless of an individual's citizenship status.