Supreme Court faces Guantanamo test again: Does president's power have limits?

Los Angeles Times - Mar 28th, 2025

A new legal battle concerning presidential powers is emerging as President Trump invokes the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. This move has been legally contested, with questions arising about the applicability of the 1798 law, which is traditionally reserved for times of declared war or foreign invasion. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary halt on these deportations, questioning the legal basis of such actions. Despite his order, the administration proceeded with deportations, claiming presidential authority in matters of national security.

This legal conflict echoes the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases from two decades ago, challenging the extent of executive power and highlighting the tension between branches of government. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld Judge Boasberg’s order, stressing the importance of due process and the limitations of using wartime powers in peacetime. As the case heads towards a likely Supreme Court showdown, it raises significant implications for the balance of power in the U.S. government and the rights of non-citizens detained within the country.

Donald Trump Guantanamo Bay National Security Supreme Court Deportation Alien Enemies Act Immigration Law Due Process

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the legal challenges related to President Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, highlighting its historical context and current implications. While it presents multiple perspectives, there is a slight imbalance favoring legal and civil liberties viewpoints. The lack of direct primary sources and detailed explanations of legal terms affects its transparency and source quality. Despite these issues, the article remains timely and relevant, addressing significant public interest topics with the potential to influence public opinion and policy debates. Enhancing source attribution and providing more balanced coverage could improve its overall quality.

Accuracy

The article presents a generally accurate depiction of the legal challenges surrounding President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. It correctly references historical context, such as the Supreme Court's 2004 decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, which is supported by historical records. However, some claims, like the exact number of Venezuelan individuals deported and the specific legal arguments used, require further verification. The article mentions that the deportations proceeded despite a judge's order, which is a serious claim that needs corroboration with court documents or official statements.

Balance

The story attempts to present multiple perspectives, including those of the Trump administration, legal experts, and advocacy groups like the ACLU. However, there is a slight imbalance in favor of the legal and civil liberties perspective, with more detailed arguments and quotes from those opposing the deportations. The administration's viewpoint is presented but lacks depth in terms of legal justification and rationale behind their actions.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow from historical context to current events. It uses straightforward language, making complex legal issues accessible to a general audience. However, some legal terms and concepts could benefit from further explanation to enhance comprehension.

Source quality

The article references credible sources such as legal experts and court decisions, which enhances its reliability. However, it lacks direct quotes or statements from primary sources like court documents or official statements from the Trump administration. This reliance on secondary sources could affect the article's impartiality and depth.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the legal background and ongoing court cases, which aids understanding. However, it lacks transparency regarding its sources and methodology. The absence of direct quotes from primary sources or detailed explanations of legal terms and implications limits readers' ability to fully grasp the complexities of the issue.