The Supreme Court made an unprecedented decision and prohibited Trump from deporting gang members.

The United States Supreme Court issued a temporary order that prevents, for now, President Donald Trump's administration from deporting illegal immigrants linked to the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, while an ongoing legal dispute is solved.

The decision, issued unsigned, returns the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for further review. Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision.

The ruling doesn't address the legal merits of deportations under the Alien Emergency Act (AEA), but it does determine that detained immigrants have the right to receive more adequate notice before being deported. "We grant temporary relief to preserve our jurisdiction while the question of the required notice is decided," the order states.

According to the court document, on April 17, a district court denied a temporary restraining order requested by the plaintiffs. A few hours later, the detainees were notified that they would be deported that same night or the next day.

Subsequent evidence indicates that the government indeed moved some immigrants from detention centers to an airport on April 18, although they were later returned to the centers.

The court cited the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to warn that if the immigrants had been deported to another country on April 19, the government could have argued, as it has in the past, that no U.S. court would have jurisdiction to intervene once the detainees are outside the country.

The Court was clear in stating that its decision is limited to the issue of prior notice and doesn't evaluate whether deportations under the AEA regime are legal or not. Additionally, it recognized that the government has legitimate interests in national security matters, but emphasized that these must be exercised consistently with the Constitution. Therefore, it urged lower courts to solve cases related to the AEA quickly.

In his dissent, Justice Alito argued that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in this case, and therefore should not have issued any form of legal relief. He also noted that the plaintiffs did not meet the necessary requirements to obtain a court order while the appeal is under review.

Finally, he criticized the granting of case review before the lower courts have issued a ruling on the merits of the matter.

This decision has significant implications on the limits of executive power in immigration matters, especially when national security is invoked, and raises questions about the use of expedited procedures without adequate judicial oversight.