As the Trump administration moves forward with its rapid efforts to deport those immigrants—with or without status—whom it deems dangerous or politically problematic, rights groups and immigration lawyers have repeatedly petitioned US courts to ensure due process for all at risk of deportation. These efforts have created a web of overlapping cases that are shaping the judiciary’s response to Trump’s immigration policy. In this explainer, we will provide a brief overview of the cases at the crux of this key moment in US history, focusing especially on cases surrounding the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, student speech, and those who should never have been deported at all.

Courts tap brakes on deportations under 18th-century law

The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 last month to authorize the deportations of Venezuelans whom it says are members of the “Tren de Aragua” gang. Trump claimed that the gang “invaded the United States and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country” to justify his use of the 18th-century wartime act.

Federal Judge James Boasberg of the District of DC attempted to halt the deportations with a two-week restraining order, hours after they were announced. However, two flights carrying the deportees to a prison in El Salvador failed to turn back to the US following the order, and another took off. Judge Boasberg later found probable cause to hold the executive branch in contempt of court over its failure to obey the order.

Almost a month after Boasberg’s restraining order, the US Supreme Court overturned it on the basis that a habeas corpus petition, or request to review the legality of the deportees’ detentions, should have been filed in Texas, where the migrants were detained, instead of DC.

Later in April, Boasberg refused to halt another batch of deportations under the AEA, citing the Supreme Court’s decision, but the high court put a temporary stop to all AEA deportations hours later. The removals are to remain on hold pending appellate proceedings and further order of the Supreme Court.

Immigration enforcement targets student activists

Many rights groups were disturbed after agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained green-card holder Mahmoud Khalil in March over his pro-Palestine activism at Columbia University. Officials revoked Khalil’s status on the basis that his presence in the US posed “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

However, Khalil’s lawyers and rights groups argued that his detention and pending deportation violate Khalil’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech. These claims led a federal judge in New York to temporarily block Khalil’s deportation pending further proceedings. A Trump administration attempt to lift the judge’s order later failed, but Khalil’s case was moved to federal court in New Jersey. In April, a federal immigration judge decided that Khalil is removable under federal law, but the deportation remains up in the air as constitutional questions remain before the courts.

In a case similar to Khalil’s, immigration agents detained Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk without warning after revoking her F1 student visa over an op-ed she coauthored calling for her university to divest from companies linked to Israel. A federal judge halted Öztürk’s deportation after her lawyers challenged her detention under the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution, which protect free speech and due process. In April, another federal judge ordered that Öztürk be moved from a Louisiana detention facility to one in Vermont so she can have better access to legal resources.

Also of note is the detention and pending removal of Georgetown researcher Badar Khan Suri, who was detained over alleged support for Hamas. A federal judge temporarily blocked his deportation, as advocates claim he was targeted over his wife’s pro-Palestinian speech.

Many other students across the US have unexpectedly had their visas revoked as part of Trump’s efforts.

Wrongfully deported man remains in El Salvador despite Supreme Court order

In March, ICE illegally detained Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador who was granted “withholding of removal” status due to being targeted by the gang Barrio 18 in his home country. Abrego Garcia was deported three days later to El Salvador’s controversial Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a prison built to hold alleged gang members arrested en masse, without due process. Federal Judge Paula Xinis ordered Abrego Garcia’s return to the US in early April, finding that ICE “had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador.”

The Supreme Court upheld most of the judge’s order four days later, saying that “the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken” to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a separate statement, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, reading in part:

The only argument the Government offers…that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong… The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including US citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.

Despite the Supreme Court’s order, Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele argued they lacked the authority to return Abrego Garcia. This prompted Judge Xinis to demand testimony from the Trump administration describing their compliance with her prior order. Three days later, a federal appeals court declined to stay Xinis’ order, leaving it intact for now.

Abrego Garcia’s deportation has been a symbol of the national controversy surrounding Trump’s deportation efforts, with Democratic Senator Chris van Hollen flying to El Salvador to meet with him. Following their meeting, Van Hollen added that Abrego Garcia was traumatized by his time in Salvadorian prison.

What’s the takeaway?

As the Trump administration moves forward with its breakneck detention and deportation efforts, courts by and large are trying to tap the brakes to ensure due process for those detained. However, the administration’s actions demonstrate that they will not necessarily obey court orders, creating what some observers have termed a constitutional crisis. Further immigration litigation will likely end up on the Supreme Court’s steps, as has the suit over Trump’s birthright citizenship order. The relationship between the executive and the judiciary stands at a crossroads, and Trump has the choice to respect the courts’ constitutional role or centralize even more power in his hands.