If there has been a common theme in the federal courts’ response to the fallout from President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation policies, it is that the White House cannot rush headlong into expelling people by sidestepping the fundamental principle of due process.

In case after case, a legal bottom line is emerging: Immigrants should at least be given the opportunity to challenge their deportations, especially as Trump officials have claimed novel and extraordinary powers to remove them.

The latest and clearest expression of that view came Friday evening, when the Supreme Court chided the Trump administration for seeking to provide only a day’s warning to a group of Venezuelan immigrants in Texas it had been trying to deport under the expansive powers of an 18th-century wartime law.

“Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal,” the justices wrote, “surely does not pass muster.”

Although many questions remain to be answered about Trump’s deportation plans, many legal scholars have hailed courts’ support of due process. At the same time, they have also expressed concern that such support was needed in the first place.

“It’s great that courts are standing up for one of the most basic principles that underlie our constitutional order — that ‘persons’ (not ‘citizens’) are entitled to due process before being deprived of life, liberty or property,” Michael Klarman, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote in an email. “It would be even better if the administration would simply cease violating such principles.”

The Supreme Court’s decision comes as Trump and some of his top aides have openly flouted the idea of providing due process to immigrants awaiting deportation, a position that the Constitution appears to lay out clearly and that the justices themselves have repeatedly upheld in previous decisions.

“We have millions of people that have come in here illegally, and we can’t have a trial for every single person,” Trump said this month on the CBS News.

Recently, Stephen Miller, Trump’s chief domestic policy adviser, went further, saying that the administration was considering suspending the writ of habeas corpus — one of the Constitution’s most important protections against unlawful detention.

Although the White House probably lacks the power to suspend the writ itself, doing so would gut the ability of immigrants subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act to contest their deportations, among other things. Under a previous ruling by the Supreme Court on Trump’s use of the wartime law, the justices held that immigrants challenging their removal under the act must do so through the habeas corpus process.

People in custody can invoke habeas corpus — Latin for “show me the body” — as a way to get in front of a judge to determine if their detention is unlawful.

The cases concerning the Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798 and last invoked to intern and repatriate Japanese, Italian and German nationals during and after World War II, have arguably gotten more attention than many other deportation cases.

There are about 10 such cases moving through courts across the country.