On Friday, the administration of President Donald Trump sought intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a contentious legal matter involving the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority he employed to expedite the deportation of individuals suspected of being affiliated with a Venezuelan gang.

This emergency appeal adds to the complexities surrounding the Supreme Court, as it seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, which has halted further deportations under the Act. This case stands at the center of a significant conflict between the executive branch and the judiciary, and is considered one of the most critical issues currently before the court during Trump’s second term, according to CNN.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris articulated to the Supreme Court, “This case raises essential questions regarding who has the authority to manage sensitive national security operations in our nation – the President, as outlined in Article II, or the judiciary. The Constitution provides a definitive answer: the President. The republic cannot sustain an alternative decision.”

The Trump administration’s position, similar to other recent appeals, primarily emphasizes grievances regarding lower courts that have impeded his initiatives by issuing temporary orders that, while not resolving the challenges to presidential authority, have nonetheless stalled parts of his agenda.

The case revolves around Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which grants him significant powers to target and deport undocumented immigrants during wartime or in response to threats of invasion or aggressive incursions. Following the invocation of this law on March 15, over 200 Venezuelans were deported on three flights to El Salvador, where they are currently detained in a maximum-security facility. The government has since indicated that some of these individuals were deported under different legal provisions rather than the 18th-century Act. The men are reportedly linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

Days after Chief Justice John Roberts issued an uncommon criticism of former President Trump’s suggestion to impeach Judge Boasberg for his management of a particular case, the matter has reached the Supreme Court.

“For over two hundred years, it has been recognized that impeachment is not an appropriate reaction to disagreements regarding judicial rulings,” Roberts stated in a release from the Supreme Court. “The standard appellate review process is designed for that purpose.”

The administration faced a lawsuit from five Venezuelans who remain in their home country and are currently detained by the Department of Homeland Security. Judge Boasberg, nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, has temporarily prohibited the administration from deporting any individuals under the relevant act, affecting both the five plaintiffs and others in similar situations, while he deliberates on the case.

It is important to note that Boasberg’s ruling does not stop the administration from detaining immigrants under the act or from deporting those individuals under different legal statutes.

In response, Trump promptly filed an appeal.

On Wednesday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Boasberg’s orders, which restrict Trump from exercising broad wartime powers, could remain in place during the ongoing legal dispute. One judge in the majority was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while another was nominated by Obama. Trump is now appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court.

In a detailed concurrence, US Circuit Judge Karen Henderson offered a textualist interpretation that may resonate with many conservative members of the court. She refuted Trump’s assertions that the influx of migrants at the US-Mexico border constitutes an invasion and that the courts lack the authority to scrutinize the application of the law.

“The term ‘invasion’ was widely understood by the Fifth Congress and the American populace around 1798,” she noted. “This phrase reverberates throughout the Constitution, which was ratified by the people just nine years earlier. In every instance, it is employed in a military context.”