Trump’s immigration orders under fire: The legal showdown you need to know

Trump’s immigration orders face legal battles

As President Donald Trump pushes forward with his bold "Make America Great Again" agenda, his aggressive immigration moves are stirring controversy and facing mounting legal challenges in the courts.

In several instances, federal judges have directed the Trump administration to ensure due process for individuals facing deportation. However, the administration has been slow to comply, raising the possibility of a constitutional showdown between the executive and judicial branches.

Battle over birthright citizenship 

The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on May 15 in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to broadly enforce an executive order limiting automatic birthright citizenship—a central element of the president's hardline immigration policy.

Federal judges in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington State issued nationwide temporary blocks on the order as legal challenges moved forward. One judge described the directive as “blatantly unconstitutional.” The Supreme Court has decided to hold off on any ruling until the case is presented in arguments.

When Trump took office on January 20, he signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to deny US citizenship to children born in the country if neither parent is a US citizen or legal permanent resident.

Birthright citizenship, the guarantee that a person born in the United States is automatically a citizen, has long been considered a central tenet of the United States.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the order, with plaintiffs including 22 Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant advocacy groups, and several pregnant women.

The legal challenges argue that Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that anyone “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

This constitutional right was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898 in the landmark case of Wong Kim Ark. The Court ruled that Wong, born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents, was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Alien Enemies Act in the spotlight

The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law, to deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be linked to the violent gang Tren de Aragua. This move is now facing legal challenges, with five lawsuits filed against the decision.

The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798 as part of a broader legislative response to anticipated conflict with France, grants the US president broad authority to detain or deport noncitizens during times of war. It was introduced alongside other measures aimed at expanding federal power in the face of national security concerns.

The issue gained national attention when the White House planned to deport nearly 140 Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador without offering them due process. This move prompted a lawsuit, leading to a Supreme Court case that was heard in Washington, D.C. in March, following action by immigration attorneys.

On March 15, US District Judge James E. Boasberg in Washington ordered the administration to halt the deportation flights, but the planes departed regardless, prompting concerns over whether officials had deliberately defied the court's directive.

Legal battles in Colorado, Texas, and New York will soon address whether the Alien Enemies Act can be applied in peacetime and used to deport individuals not clearly tied to a hostile nation.

The Justice Department must also prove that the deported Venezuelans are linked to the Tren de Aragua gang. Meanwhile, the ACLU is working to revive the Washington case after a Supreme Court ruling, seeking due process for those already deported.

Judge Boasberg has warned he may investigate the administration's defiance of his order unless steps are taken to let the men in El Salvador contest their removal.

Case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's release

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador on March 15 despite a court order explicitly forbidding it. A federal appeals court in Virginia has reaffirmed that the Trump administration must take concrete steps to secure his release.

This marks the third court ruling, including one from the Supreme Court, directing the administration to actively “facilitate” his return and ensure he is given the due process he was denied.

The Justice Department admitted the deportation was an error but has so far failed to act meaningfully. Instead, officials have reportedly spent weeks trying to avoid complying with the court's orders.

In response, Federal District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland has initiated an inquiry into who inside the Trump administration is responsible for the delay.

The appeals court criticized the administration’s passive stance, stating that the term “facilitate” demands real, proactive measures — not inaction or bureaucratic deflection. Meanwhile, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has said he will not release Abrego Garcia, adding further urgency and complexity to the situation.