administrations

Kennedy, a top health official, urges ‘cautious approach’ after Trump baselessly claimed taking Tylenol is linked autism in children.

United States Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has partially walked back his warning that taking Tylenol during pregnancy is directly linked to autism in children.

In a news conference on Wednesday, Kennedy struck a more moderate tone than he generally has in his past public appearances.

“The causative association between Tylenol given in pregnancy and the perinatal periods is not sufficient to say it definitely causes autism,” Kennedy told reporters. “But it’s very suggestive.”

“There should be a cautious approach to it,” he added. “ That’s why our message to patients, to mothers, to people who are pregnant and to the mothers of young children is: Consult your physician.”

Wednesday’s statement is closer in line with the guidance of reputable health agencies.

While some studies have raised the possibility of a link between Tylenol and autism, there have been no conclusive findings. Pregnant women are advised to consult a doctor before taking the medication.

The World Health Organization reiterated the point in September, noting that “no consistent association has been established” between the medication and autism, despite “extensive research”.

But claims to the contrary have already prompted efforts to limit the availability of Tylenol, a popular brand of acetaminophen, a fever- and pain-reducing medication.

On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched a lawsuit accusing Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, the companies behind the over-the-counter pain reliever, of deceptive practices.

In doing so, he reiterated misinformation shared by President Donald Trump and government officials like Kennedy.

“By holding Big Pharma accountable for poisoning our people, we will help Make America Healthy Again,” Paxton said in a statement, giving a nod to Kennedy’s MAHA slogan.

The suit alleges that Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue violated Texas consumer protection laws by having “deceptively marketed Tylenol as the only safe painkiller for pregnant women”.

It was the latest instance of scientific misinformation being perpetuated by top officials. Both Trump and Kennedy have repeatedly spread scientific misinformation throughout their political careers.

Trump linked autism and the painkiller during a news conference in September, without providing reputable scientific findings to back the claim.

“[Using] acetaminophen – is that OK? – which is basically, commonly known as Tylenol, during pregnancy can be associated with a very increased risk of autism,” Trump said on September 22. “So taking Tylenol is not good. I’ll say it. It’s not good.”

Kennedy has offered his own sweeping statements about Tylenol and its alleged risks, despite having no professional medical background.

“Anyone who takes this stuff during pregnancy, unless they have to, is irresponsible,” he said in a cabinet meeting on October 9.

Kennedy also mischaracterised studies on male circumcision earlier this month. He falsely said the studies showed an increase in autism among children who were “circumcised early”.

“It’s highly likely because they’re given Tylenol,” he added.

Kenvue stressed in a statement on Tuesday that acetaminophen is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women, noting that high fevers and pain are potential risks to pregnancies if left untreated.

“We stand firmly with the global medical community that acknowledges the safety of acetaminophen and believe we will continue to be successful in litigation as these claims lack legal merit and scientific support,” Kenvue said.

Oct. 8 (UPI) — Pope Leo XIV reportedly opposed U.S. mass deportation efforts after meeting with El Paso, Texas, Bishop Mark Seitz and members of the Hope Border Institute on Wednesday.

The pope hosted Seitz, institute members and others in Vatican City to discuss the Trump administration’s efforts to deport potentially millions of “migrants” who no longer have legal standing to remain in the United States, according to the Holy See Press Office.

Seitz said the meeting was to enable Pope Leo to see and hear the “stories and fears of our immigrant sisters and brothers from across our country,” USA Today reported.

The meeting included showing a four-minute video of migrants recounting their experiences amid the Trump administration’s efforts to deport those without legal standing to remain in the United States.

“He watched the whole thing, and his eyes at the end were filled with tears,” Dylan Corbett, executive director of the Hope Border Institute, told Politico.

“As the meeting came to an end, he said, ‘You stand with me, and I stand with you, and the church will continue to accompany and stand with migrants.'” Corbett said.

The Vatican has not confirmed that Pope Leo made those comments, but many U.S. Catholic leaders have denounced the Trump administration’s deportation of an estimated 2 million “migrants.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Oct. 1 rejected claims that those being deported are subject to “inhumane treatment” and said the Trump administration is enforcing the nation’s immigration laws.

The Hope Border Institute is an El Paso-based non-profit that says its mission is “pursuing justice at the U.S.-Mexico border.”

While the pope reportedly stands with Seitz and the Hope Border Institute, Vatican City enforces its borders and punishes illegal crossings by fining and imprisoning offenders for between one and four years, according to the Catholic News Agency.

Oct. 2 (UPI) — Rep. Robert Garcia wants the Office of Special Counsel to investigate the Trump administration for alleged Hatch Act violations arising from government shutdown messaging.

Garcia, D-Calif., is the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and on Thursday in a letter to Acting Special Counsel Jamieson Greer said the Trump administration has illegally used government resources to promote false and partisan political messaging.

He said the Trump administration posted false and partisan political messages on at least one federal agency website on Sept. 30 and in emails to federal employees.

“The Hatch Act imposes clear restrictions on the political activity of federal executive branch employees and does not allow activity ‘directed toward the success or failure of a political party, partisan political group or candidate for partisan political office,'” Garcia wrote.

He asked Greer to immediately open an investigation into what he says is “clear misconduct” and a “blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars for political purposes.”

Garcia cited the Department of Housing and Urban Development website’s homepage blaming the “radical left” for causing “massive pain on the American people” on Sept. 30.

He also accused HUD Secretary Scott Turner of violating the Hatch Act by saying, “It is a shame that far-left Democrats are holding our government hostage” in a social media post.

Other agencies have circulated emails to employees that claim the government shutdown is “Democrat-imposed” and blame “radical liberals in Congress” of causing the shutdown that halts critical services for Americans, Garcia said.

The non-profit organization Public Citizen on Wednesday also filed complaints against HUD and the Small Business Administration regarding political messaging, Politico reported.

The Trump administration’s messaging has raised concerns of possible ethics violations.

Ethics experts, though, told Politico the controversial messaging might not violate the Hatch Act but might violate the Anti-Lobbying Act.

A White House spokeswoman on Thursday denied that the Trump administration has violated any federal laws.

“It’s an objective fact that Democrats are responsible for the government shutdown,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Hill.

“The Trump administration is simply sharing the truth with the American people,” she added.

An unnamed White House official also said the Biden administration and Obama administration had targeted Republicans in messaging.

In a message shared with UPI on Thursday, the White House did not directly address Garcia’s Hatch Act violation claim but accused Senate Democrats of wanting to “inflict massive pain on the American people unless they get their radical $1.5 trillion demands” approved in an alternative continuing resolution to keep the federal government open.

House Democrats submitted the alternative continuing resolution, which would have funded the federal government through Oct. 31 and would provide “free health insurance for illegal immigrants and others who do not qualify for taxpayer-funded health insurance programs,” according to the White House.

The House Dems’ continuing resolution also would expand premium tax credits and others enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic via Medicaid and Affordable Care Act plans that would pay for transgender surgeries and other gender-related therapies and treatments, the White House message said.

Sept. 18 (UPI) — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to deport at least 600 Guatemalan children, rejecting claims by the Department of Homeland Security that the move was an effort to reunite them with their parents.

Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia said in his ruling that the administration’s claim that it was reuniting children with their parents “crumbled like a house of cards” because “there is no evidence before the Court that the parents of these children sought their return to Guatemala.”

Kelly temporarily stopped the administration from transferring, repatriating, removing or otherwise aiding in the transport of any of the 76 Guatemalan migrant children that immigration authorities attempted to deport in the middle of the night during the Labor Day weekend.

Attorneys representing the children said they were notified by federal officials late at night that they were being “repatriated,” the ruling said.

The Trump administration pushed back on Kelly’s ruling

“This judge is blocking efforts to REUNIFY CHILDREN with their families,” Tricia McLaughlin, Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary, said in a statement to NBC News. “Now these children will have to go to shelters. All just to ‘get Trump.’ This is disgraceful and immoral.”

Kelly, appointed by President Donald Trump, referenced a report from the Guatemalan attorney general’s office in response to the administration’s plan to deport more than 600 children to the country. The report said no parents had requested the return of their children.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary legal protections that have granted more than 1 million people from Haiti and Venezuela the right to live and work in the United States.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco for the plaintiffs means 600,000 Venezuelans whose temporary protections expired in April or whose protections were about to expire Sept. 10 have status to stay and work in the United States. It also keeps protections for about 500,000 Haitians.

Chen scolded Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for revoking protections for Venezuelans and Haitians that the judge said would send them “back to conditions that are so dangerous that even the State Department advises against travel to their home countries.”

He said Noem’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and she exceeded her authority in ending protections that were extended three times by the Biden administration.

Presidential administrations have executed the law for 35 years based on the best available information and in consultation with other agencies, “a process that involves careful study and analysis. Until now,” Chen wrote.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Temporary Protected Status is a designation that can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people in the United States, if conditions in their homelands are deemed unsafe for return due to a natural disaster, political instability or other dangerous conditions.

Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. The country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

Haiti was first designated for TPS in 2010 after a catastrophic magnitude 7.0 earthquake killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of people, and left more than 1 million homeless. Haitians face widespread hunger and gang violence.

Their designations were to expire in September but later extended until February, due to a separate court order out of New York.

Noem said that conditions in both Haiti and Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the national interest to allow migrants from the countries to stay on for what is a temporary program. Attorneys for the government have said the secretary’s clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program are not subject to judicial review.

Designations are granted for terms of six, twelve or 18 months, and extensions can be granted so long as conditions remain dire. The status prevents holders from being deported and allows them to work.

The secretary’s action in revoking TPS was not only unprecedented in the manner and speed in which it was taken but also violated the law, Chen wrote.

The case has had numerous legal twists, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In March, Chen temporarily paused the administration’s plans to end TPS for people from Venezuela. An estimated 350,000 Venezuelans were set to lose protections the following month.

The U.S. Supreme Court in May reversed his order while the lawsuit played out. The justices provided no rationale, which is common in emergency appeals, and did not rule on the merits of the case.

Venezuelans with expired protections were fired from jobs, separated from children, detained by officers and even deported, lawyers for TPS holders said.

The Supreme Court’s reversal does not apply to Friday’s ruling. The government is expected to seek a stay of Chen’s order as it appeals.

Last week, a three-judge appeals panel also sided with plaintiffs, saying the Republican administration did not have the authority to vacate protection extensions granted by the previous administration.

Har writes for the Associated Press.

BALTIMORE — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order by the chief judge that stopped the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen granted a request by the judges to toss the case, saying to do otherwise “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”

“In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign,” Cullen wrote. “That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary’s constitutional role.”

The White House had no immediate comment.

Cullen was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2020. He serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the case because all 15 of Maryland’s federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s harsh response to judges who slow or stop its policies.

Cullen expressed skepticism of the lawsuit during a hearing in August. He questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue all the judges as a means of challenging the order.

Signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III, the order prevents the Trump administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in Maryland district court. It blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The order says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.”

The Justice Department, which filed the suit in June, says the automatic pause violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws. The department has grown increasingly frustrated by rulings blocking Trump’s agenda, repeatedly accusing federal judges of improperly impeding his powers.

The lawsuit was an extraordinary legal maneuver, ratcheting up the administration’s fight with the federal judiciary.

Attorneys for the Maryland judges argued the lawsuit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the Trump administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” attorney Paul Clement said during the hearing. “There really is no precursor for this suit”

Clement is a prominent conservative lawyer who served as solicitor general under Republican President George W. Bush. He listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges said the government was simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

In an amended order pausing deportations, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

Attorneys for the Trump administration accused the Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, writing in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the Trump administration in March illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.

Trump has railed against unfavorable judicial rulings, and in one case called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered planeloads of deported immigrants to be turned around. In July, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against the judge.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

BALTIMORE — A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen didn’t issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration’s extraordinary legal maneuver, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented.

Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland’s 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies.

At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Trump’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

But attorneys for the Maryland judges argue that the suit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” said Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer who served as Republican President George W. Bush’s solicitor general. “There really is no precursor for this suit.”

Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Cullen also asked the government’s lawyers whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court.

“I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,” Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration’s case.

Hedges denied that the case would “open the floodgates” to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government’s request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge’s order.

The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense,” according to the order.

Russell also said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.

The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterized the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he’s released from jail pending trial.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed on Friday to temporarily block the Trump administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole — a ruling that could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand “expedited removal” for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration’s plans.

The case “presents a question of fair play” for people fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries, Cobb said in her 84-page order.

“In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,” she wrote. “Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.”

Fast-track deportations allow immigration officers to remove somebody from the U.S. without seeing a judge first. In immigration cases, parole allows somebody applying for admission to the U.S. to enter the country without being held in detention.

Immigrants’ advocacy groups sued Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to challenge three recent DHS agency actions that expanded expedited removal. A surge of arrests at immigration courts highlights the lawsuit’s high stakes.

The judge’s ruling applies to any non-citizen who has entered the U.S. through the parole process at a port of entry. She suspended the challenged DHS actions until the case’s conclusion.

Cobb said the case’s “underlying question” is whether people who escaped oppression will have the chance to “plead their case within a system of rules.”

“Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges — may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?” she added.

A plaintiffs’ attorney, Justice Action Center legal director Esther Sung, described the ruling as a “huge win” for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families. Sung said many people are afraid to attend routine immigration hearings out of fear of getting arrested.

“Hopefully this decision will alleviate that fear,” Sung said.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After being arrested, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

President Trump sharply expanded fast-track authority in January, allowing immigration officers to deport someone without first seeing a judge. Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.

“Expedited removal” was created under a 1996 law and has been used widely for people stopped at the border since 2004. Trump attempted to expand those powers nationwide to anyone in the country less than two years in 2019 but was held up in court. His latest efforts amount to a second try.

ICE exercised its expanded authority sparingly at first during Trump’s second term but has since relied on it for aggressive enforcement in immigration courts and in “workplace raids,” according to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Kunzelman and Spagat write for the Associated Press. Spagat reported from San Diego.

June 17 (UPI) — A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday expanded an order against the State Department’s passport policy to include all applicants who are transgender or nonbinary, saying the “passport policy violates their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.”

Judge Julia Kobick granted a first preliminary injunction in April, which blocked the State Department’s policy for only six of seven people who originally sued. On Tuesday, the judge expanded it to plaintiffs who were added to the suit, and nearly all trans and nonbinary Americans seeking new passports or changes.

Kobick, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote that the six named plaintiffs and the new class of plaintiffs “face the same injury: they cannot obtain a passport with a sex designation that aligns with their gender identity.”

“The plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Passport Policy violates their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws and runs afoul of the safeguards of the APA,” Kobick wrote in Tuesday’s opinion, while referring to the Administrative Procedure Act which governs how policies are adopted.

After taking office earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, proclaiming the United States recognizes only two sexes — male and female — and that those sexes “are not changeable.” Trump then ordered government-issued identification documents, including U.S. passports, to reflect a person’s sex at birth.

“We will no longer issue U.S. passports or Consular Reports of Birth Abroad with an X marker,” according the State Department. “We will only issue passports with an M or F sex marker that match the customer’s biological sex at birth.”

Under the Biden administration, passport holders could self-select gender designation, including “unspecified” which was designated by the letter X.

The Trump administration appealed Kobick’s ruling in April. On Tuesday, Kobick wrote that forcing transgender and nonbinary people to choose between two sexes makes them more vulnerable to discrimination.

“Absent preliminary injunctive relief, these plaintiffs may effectively be forced to out themselves as transgender or non-binary every time they present their passport,” Kobick wrote.

The legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts celebrated Tuesday’s ruling and vowed to “continue to fight.”

“This decision acknowledges the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration’s passport policy has on the ability of people across the country to travel for work, school and family,” Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement.

“The Trump administration’s passport policy attacks the foundations of the right to privacy and the freedom for all people to live their lives safely and with dignity,” Rossman added. “We will continue to fight to stop this unlawful policy once and for all.”

May 22 (UPI) — A federal judge in Massachusetts issued an injunction Thursday that blocks the Trump administration from its plan to dismantle the Department of Education, and that those employees recently fired from the department be rehired.

U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun stated in his ruling: “The Department must be able to carry out its functions and its obligations under the [Department of Education Organization Act] and other relevant statutes as mandated by Congress.”

Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann stated Thursday that the administration “will immediately challenge this on an emergency basis.”

Joun ruled on the first civil action that was filed by the State of New York against Education Department Secretary Linda McMahon and Somerville Public Schools of Massachusetts against President Donald Trump that stated “a preliminary injunction is warranted to return the Department to the status quo such that it can comply with its statutory obligations.”

President Donald Trump had issued an executive order in March that sought to close the department, despite the Department of Education Organization Act, which shows that as the Department was created by Congress, it can only be closed by an act of Congress.

The United States Supreme Court has granted an emergency petition from a group of migrants in Texas, barring the use of an 18th-century wartime law to expedite their removals.

Friday’s unsigned decision (PDF) is yet another blow to the administration of President Donald Trump, who has sought to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport undocumented immigrants out of the US.

Only two conservative justices dissented: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

While the high court has yet to rule on the merits of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, it did issue “injunctive relief” to Venezuelan migrants faced with expulsion under the centuries-old law.

“We have long held that ‘no person shall be’ removed from the United States ‘without opportunity, at some time, to be heard’,” the court majority wrote in its ruling.

It reaffirmed a previous opinion that migrants in the US are entitled to due process – in other words, they are entitled to a fair hearing in the judicial system – before their deportation.

Friday’s case was brought by two unnamed migrants from Venezuela, identified only by initials. They are being held in a detention centre in north Texas as they face deportation.

The Trump administration has accused them, and others from Venezuela, of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. It has further sought to paint undocumented migration into the US as an “invasion” and link Tren de Aragua’s activities in the US to the Venezuelan government, an assertion that a recently declassified intelligence memo disputes.

That, the Trump administration has argued, justifies its use of the Alien Enemies Act, which has only been used three times prior in US history – and only during periods of war.

But Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has spurred a legal backlash, with several US district courts hearing petitions from migrants fearing expulsion under the law.

Multiple judges have barred the law’s use for expedited removals. But one judge in Pennsylvania ruled the Trump administration could deploy the law – provided it offer appropriate notice to those facing deportation. She suggested 21 days.

The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh in on whether Trump’s use of the law was merited. Instead, its ruling – 24 pages in total, including a dissent – hewed closely to the issue of whether the Venezuelans in question deserved relief from their imminent deportation under the law.

The majority of the nine-justice bench noted that “evidence” it had seen in the case suggested “the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18” to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, even transporting the migrants “from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them”.

The justices asserted that they had a right to weigh in on the case, in order to prevent “irreparable harm” to the migrants and assert their jurisdiction in the case. Otherwise, they pointed out a deportation could put the migrants beyond their reach.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh went a step further in a separate opinion, calling on the Supreme Court to issue a final and binding ruling in the matter, rather than simply grant this one petition.

“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court,” he said, agreeing with the majority’s decision.

Thomas and Alito, in their dissent, argued the Supreme Court had not afforded enough time to a lower court to rule on the emergency petition.

In the aftermath of the ruling, Trump lashed out on Truth Social, portraying the Supreme Court’s majority as overly lax towards migrants.

“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” Trump wrote in the first of two consecutive posts.

In the second, he called Friday’s decision the mark of a “bad and dangerous day in America”. He complained that affirming the right to due process would result in “a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person”.

He also argued that the high court was preventing him from exercising his executive authority.

“The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,” he wrote, imagining a circumstance where extended deportation hearings would lead to “bedlam” in the US.

His administration has long accused the courts of interference in his agenda. But critics have warned that Trump’s actions – particularly, alleged efforts to ignore court orders – are eroding the US’s constitutional system of checks and balances.

In a statement after the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the court’s decision as a bulwark against human rights abuses.

“The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

“The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.”

The Supreme Court currently boasts a conservative supermajority, with six right-leaning judges and three left-leaning ones.

Three among them were appointed by Trump himself. Those three sided with the majority.