The U.S. Supreme Court has approved an emergency petition from a group of immigrants in Texas, prohibiting the use of 18th-century wartime laws to speed up their strikes.

Friday’s unsigned decision (PDF) is another blow to President Donald Trump’s administration, who had tried to quickly expel undocumented immigrants from the United States using the 1798 Alien Enemy Act.

There are only two conservative judges who don't object: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Although the High Court has not ruled on the merits of Trump's use of the Alien Enemy Act, it does issue "injunction relief" to Venezuelan immigrants, who are subject to a century-old law.

"We have long believed that 'no chance' is granted at some point' no chance'," the court majority wrote in its ruling.

It reaffirms the previous view that immigrants in the United States have the right to due process before being deported – in other words, they have the right to have fair hearings in the judicial system.

Friday’s case was filed by two unnamed immigrants from Venezuela and determined by the abbreviation only. When they faced deportation, they were held in North Texas detention centers.

The Trump administration accused them and the rest of Venezuela of being members of the Tren de Alagua gang. It further attempts to portray undocumented immigrants as “invasions” and links Tren de Aragua’s activities in the United States to the Venezuelan government, an assertion of a recently declassified intelligence memorandum dispute.

The Trump administration believes this justifies its use of the Alien Enemy Act, which was used only three times in U.S. history during war times.

But Trump's use of the Foreign Enemy Act has stimulated a legal rebound, with several U.S. district courts hearing petitions for immigrants deported by law.

Several judges prohibited the use of the law from expediting. But a Pennsylvania judge ruled that the Trump administration could deploy the law — as long as it provides appropriate notices to those facing deportation. She recommends 21 days.

The Supreme Court did not consider on Friday whether Trump deserves the law. Instead, its ruling has a total of 24 pages, including objections - closely related to the question of whether Venezuelans deserve the law's impending deportation.

Most of the nine judicial benches noted that the “evidence” it saw in this case suggests that “in fact, on the afternoon of April 18, the government had taken measures to invoke the Alien Enemy Act and even transported immigrants from detention centers to airports and later returned to them.”

The judge asserted that they had the right to weigh the case to prevent “irreparable harm” to immigrants and assert their jurisdiction in this case. Otherwise, they pointed out that deportation may make it unreachable for immigrants.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh took a step in another opinion, calling on the Supreme Court to issue a final ruling on the matter, rather than simply ratifying the petition.

"This situation requires a prompt and final resolution, only by this court," he said.

Thomas and Alito argued in objection that the Supreme Court did not have enough time to go to the lower court to rule on the emergency petition.

After the ruling, Trump slammed the Truth Society, portraying the Supreme Court’s majority as excessive lenient towards immigration.

"The Supreme Court does not allow us to bring criminals out of our country!" Trump wrote in the first of two consecutive articles.

In the second, he called Friday’s decision a sign of “an unfavorable and dangerous day in the United States.” He complained that confirming due process rights would lead to "a long, lasting and expensive legal process that everyone could take many years".

He also argued that the High Court was blocking him from exercising his enforcement powers.

"The U.S. Supreme Court does not allow me to do what I was elected," he wrote. He imagines a situation where an extended deportation hearing in the United States led to "Bedland."

His administration has long accused the court of interfering in his agenda. But critics warn that Trump's actions, especially efforts to allegedly ignore court orders, are eroding the U.S. system of checks and balances.

In a statement following the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the court's ruling as a bastion of opposing human rights violations.

"The court's decision to dismiss the office is a powerful condemnation of the government's attempt to hurry to go to the Gulag-type prison in El Salvador City," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigration Rights Program.

“In peacetime, using wartime authorization without even making proper procedures raises very important questions.”

The Supreme Court currently has a conservative super contribution, with six right-leaning judges and three left-leaning judges.

Three of them were appointed by Trump himself. These three support most.