President Donald Trump continues to face a mountain of legal challenges regarding his border and immigration policy initiatives.

According to Fox News, his latest legal battle didn't end well, as the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted the Trump administration's ability to deport Venezuelan migrants using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. 

And to say the very least, Justice Samuel Alito, one of two conservative dissenters, wasn't happy about the ruling.

Alito wrote a fiery dissent slamming the decision to halt the deportations, even going as far as calling it "legally questionable."

What happened?

Early Saturday morning, the high court answered an emergency appeal by ruling that the Trump administration needed to halt the deportations of Venezuelan migrants being held at the Texas Bluebonnet Detention Center "until further order of this court."

Conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett both voted in favor of halting the deportations, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.

Alito had many issues with the ruling, especially the timing of the decision, which he said literally happened "in the middle of the night."

"[T]he Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order," Alito wrote.

He added, "I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate."

"Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures."

Opposition filed

Lawyers for the president and his administration filed an opposition to the order later that day.

"The government has agreed not to remove, pursuant the AEA, those AEA detainees who do file habeas claims (including the putative class representatives)," the filing read.

"This Court should dissolve its current administrative stay and allow the lower courts to address the relevant legal and factual questions in the first instance — including the development of a proper factual record."

Clearly, this legal battle is far from over.