A recent federal court decision may signal a major shift in U.S. immigration enforcement—and according to CNN analysts, it could spell disaster for the Democratic Party if the issue reaches the Supreme Court. At the heart of the case is the Trump administration’s controversial use of an 18th-century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to justify deporting Venezuelan nationals.
A three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause a lower court’s ruling that challenged the legality of those deportations, siding 2-1 with the plaintiffs.
Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, grilled the Justice Department’s attorney, Drew Ensign, over whether the administration had violated due process rights by potentially denying individuals the ability to seek habeas corpus protections.
Millett questioned how the administration was applying the law and whether the deportees were being given adequate time and legal options.
The Justice Department is expected to appeal, and legal experts believe the case could advance to the Supreme Court. On CNN, legal analyst and former DOJ official Xochitl Hinojosa explained why this case is so unusual.
She emphasized that it’s not just about the Alien Enemies Act itself, but about the Justice Department’s refusal to provide critical information requested by the lower court judge.
“This has been an unprecedented case from the start,” Hinojosa said. “Judge Boasberg essentially asked for more details before making a decision, but the DOJ refused. That refusal led to this appeal—and now the D.C. Circuit is involved.”
She warned that if the Supreme Court takes up the case and rules in favor of Trump’s team, it could drastically increase executive power over deportation, with limited judicial oversight.
“There’s a real possibility this opens the door for the administration to bypass courts almost entirely in deportation matters.”
Senior political reporter Marc Caputo added that the Trump administration views this legal fight as a strategic opportunity.
“They’re banking on a Supreme Court with a conservative majority to side with them,” he said. “The goal is to expand executive authority, and they believe the law and the Court are on their side.”
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi also weighed in, blasting the lower court judges for interfering in what she described as the administration’s rightful authority over foreign policy and immigration. “This is a rogue judge trying to dictate our foreign policy.
If we have to take it to the Supreme Court, we will,” she said in a Fox News interview.
With immigration remaining a politically charged topic, the outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications—not just for those at risk of deportation, but for the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches. For Democrats, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, it could redefine how much control future presidents have over immigration enforcement. And for critics, that could mean “game over.”
