26 States File Brief Supporting Deportations Case at Supreme Court

The attorneys general, all Republicans, alleged their citizens are being ‘actively harmed’ by gang members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 10, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Attorneys general from 26 states filed an amicus or friend of the court brief on March 31, urging the Supreme Court to grant President Donald Trump’s request for a stay in a case challenging his use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected members of a Venezuelan gang.

Trump asked the Supreme Court on March 28 to vacate orders from a federal judge blocking his ability to implement a proclamation applying the Alien Enemies Act to members of Tren de Aragua (TdA).

“The district court ... erred by failing to afford the President proper deference in his exercise of his statutory and constitutional powers,” read the brief from the attorneys general, all Republicans. “In doing so,” they added, “the district court violated important principles of separation of powers.”

The states included Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Florida and West Virginia, along with others usually considered to lean red, such as South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, and Montana.

Chief Justice John Roberts has requested that the Supreme Court issue a response to Trump’s application by 10 a.m. ET on April 1.

In his March 15 proclamation, Trump said that “TdA has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the [Nicholas] Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.”

The states told the Supreme Court that Trump’s description of the gang comported with their experiences with TdA “and underscores the importance of the proclamation to public safety efforts.” The brief linked to articles about the gang’s activities, including a report on a Homeland Security Department memo stating that the gang has operated in 16 states.

“As long as TdA is allowed to continue operating and expanding throughout the United States, the gang will continue to rain down a deluge of criminal activity upon the States,” the states said. “In short, the States and their citizens are being actively harmed by TdA’s infiltration.”

Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court came just days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected his request that it stay the orders from the district court in a 2-1 decision. Like the states, the Department of Justice has also alleged that the district court intruded on the president’s executive authority.

Appeals Court Judge Patricia Millett praised the district court’s handling of the case and said “there is neither jurisdiction nor reason for this court to interfere at this very preliminary stage or to allow the government to singlehandedly moot the Plaintiffs’ claims by immediately removing them beyond the reach of their lawyers or the court.”

She seemed to worry about the consequences of granting the administration’s requests, suggesting that the administration had “easily thrown aside” the Constitution’s demand of due process.

Filed earlier this month, the lawsuit was brought by five plaintiffs who said they faced removal under Trump’s proclamation, including some who said they either weren’t part of Tren de Aragua or were victimized by the group.

The administration said during oral arguments on March 26 that it had not removed the five illegal immigrants. It has, however, removed other alleged TdA gang members on flights that took place the same day as a hearing in which federal Judge James Boasberg blocked the implementation of Trump’s proclamation.

Appeals Court Judge Justin Walker issued a dissent in which he agreed with the administration that the proper legal avenue for the plaintiffs to challenge the government’s actions was through a petition for habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention. That being the case, the plaintiffs had brought their claims in the wrong court as they are “not confined in the District of Columbia,” he said, amid the Trump administration’s accusations that they were “judge shopping.”

Millett said the plaintiffs are not challenging their detention but claiming a right to “remain in a country.”

Walker’s dissent stated that “the government has ... shown that the district court’s orders threaten irreparable harm to delicate negotiations with foreign powers on matters concerning national security.”