Several U.S. citizens, asylum seekers, and legal immigrants have been “mistakenly detained” and even deported under new federal enforcement guidelines tied to the Alien Enemies Act, according to immigration attorneys and civil liberties watchdogs. The incidents come just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s broad authority to enforce the centuries-old law, originally passed in 1798.
The ruling—United States v. Rahmani—affirmed the government’s right to detain and deport individuals from countries deemed hostile in times of national emergency. President Donald Trump praised the decision, calling it “a tremendous victory for national security and the rule of law.”
“We’re not going to let America be weakened from within,” Trump said at a campaign event in Ohio on April 10. “When people from enemy nations pose a threat—even if they’re here legally—we have to act. The court made the right call.”
But as enforcement accelerates, reports are surfacing of U.S. citizens—some born in the United States—being detained due to mistaken identity, clerical errors, or questionable intelligence reports.
‘They took my brother without explanation’
One such case involves Jamal Hassan, a 32-year-old software engineer from New Jersey and natural-born U.S. citizen. According to his family, Hassan was detained last month after a workplace raid targeting individuals with Iranian ties.
“They took my brother without explanation. He’s never even been to Iran,” said his sister, Laila Hassan. “We had to prove he was born here, that he had a passport, everything. He was held for nine days.”
Civil rights groups say the Hassan case is one of at least seven involving mistaken detentions of citizens or permanent residents, with two individuals reportedly deported to countries they had never lived in.
The Department of Homeland Security has not commented on specific cases but issued a statement defending its procedures. “All actions are taken in accordance with federal law and under judicial oversight,” it said.
Certainly, here’s an expanded section focusing on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident mistakenly deported to El Salvador:
The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident and father of two U.S. citizen children, was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March 2025. Despite holding a legal status that protected him from removal due to credible threats from gangs in his home country, Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador and imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a maximum-security facility known for harsh conditions.
The deportation was acknowledged by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an “administrative error.” However, efforts to rectify the mistake have been met with resistance. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, but the Trump administration interpreted this as a limited obligation, asserting that it does not require active measures to secure his release from El Salvador.
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has refused to release Abrego Garcia, labeling him a terrorist and stating he would not “smuggle a terrorist into the United States.” This stance has drawn criticism from U.S. lawmakers and human rights advocates. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has called the continued detention “absolutely unjust and illegal,” emphasizing the need for immediate action to bring Abrego Garcia home.
A divided court
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the government’s application of the Alien Enemies Act, with the majority citing national security concerns. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, argued that the law “remains a constitutionally valid delegation of emergency authority from Congress to the executive branch.”
The dissenting justices, led by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, raised alarms about the scope of the ruling.
“This decision grants extraordinary power to the executive with minimal safeguards. The risk to civil liberties is not theoretical—it is already manifesting,” Jackson wrote.
Despite these divisions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government must facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador despite legal protections. However, the Court did not require the government to actively bring him back, limiting its responsibility to ensuring that his immigration case proceeds as if he had not been deported.
The Trump administration has interpreted the ruling narrowly, stating it will allow his reentry if he’s released, but will not intervene to secure his release from a Salvadoran prison. El Salvador stated that they have no interest in releasing Garcia.
Scholars raise red flags
Constitutional law experts have expressed concern that the ruling sets a precedent for sweeping executive authority, even when misapplications occur.
“We’re witnessing a moment where legal frameworks are being bent to the point of breaking,” said Dr. Aaron Feldman, professor of law at Georgetown University. “Mistaken deportations of citizens show we’re not operating within a system that ensures due process for all.”
“The government is not following the law perfectly—far from it,” said immigration attorney Carla Menendez. “And the consequences are devastating.”
The United States is currently paying El Salvador $6 million to detain migrants, including individuals deported under the Trump administration’s immigration policies. This payment is part of an agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to house deportees in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a maximum-security prison known for its harsh conditions and alleged human rights violations.
Immigrants detained at citizenship interviews
Immigrants applying for U.S. green cards and citizenship are increasingly being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during scheduled interviews with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), raising alarm among legal experts and rights advocates.
One recent case involves Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian student and legal U.S. resident, who was arrested on April 14 while attending a naturalization interview in Colchester, Vermont. Mahdawi, who has no criminal record, is a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights at Columbia University. A federal judge has since issued a temporary restraining order to prevent his immediate deportation.
“This is a disturbing trend that undermines due process and discourages immigrants from engaging with legal pathways to citizenship,” said ACLU attorney Lina Pérez. “No one should be afraid to attend their own immigration appointment.”
ICE has defended its actions as consistent with immigration enforcement policy, but critics argue that such arrests violate trust in the immigration system and may be politically motivated. Legal organizations are calling for investigations and safeguards to prevent further misuse of immigration procedures.
Trump supporters defend the policy
Supporters of the administration argue the measures are necessary in an increasingly dangerous world. U.S. Rep. Clay Bannon (R-TX) defended the ruling in a statement, saying, “This is about keeping Americans safe. If a few errors happen, they’re regrettable—but they don’t mean the system is broken.”
That statement drew criticism from across the aisle.
“We cannot call ourselves a democracy if we’re throwing citizens into detention centers with no recourse,” said Sen. Maria Sanchez (D-CA). “This isn’t law and order—it’s lawlessness disguised as policy.”
Calls for justice and reform
Protests have erupted in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, with demonstrators demanding the immediate release of detainees and a congressional review of the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU and Human Rights Watch have filed multiple lawsuits, seeking injunctions against further deportations without full due process.
“We’re at a constitutional crossroads,” said Shalina Roy of the Center for Democratic Accountability. “This ruling opens the door to a dangerous erosion of our most basic rights.”
What comes next
Legal scholars predict the Alien Enemies Act will become a central flashpoint in the 2026 election cycle, as lawmakers face increasing pressure to revisit its scope. In the meantime, families like the Hassans are left trying to undo the consequences of a system many say is spiraling out of control.
