A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration’s attempts to expedite deportations of migrants linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua cannot proceed under the Alien Enemies Act. In a closely contested 2-1 decision, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with arguments from immigrant rights advocates and lower court judges. They contended that the 18th-century law was created for wartime use, not aimed at combating gang activity.
Lee Gelernt, representing the American Civil Liberties Union, remarked, “The Trump administration’s use of a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court.” His statement underscores the significance of this ruling, which challenges the administration’s broad interpretation of emergency powers.
Historically, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 has only been invoked during periods of declared warfare, such as the War of 1812 and both World Wars. The Trump administration, however, contended that the gang’s alleged ties to the Venezuelan government justified such drastic measures, claiming they posed a direct danger to national security. Immigration officials argued that the urgency of the situation warranted swift action, suggesting that the underlying gang activity required immediate and decisive deportations.
Despite these claims, the court found no evidence of an “invasion or predatory incursion,” leading them to grant a preliminary injunction halting deportations in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The judges stated, “A country encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States.” This perspective highlights the court’s emphasis on a clear separation between legitimate threats and exaggerated claims of danger.
In dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham expressed concern that the majority’s ruling overstepped judicial boundaries by interfering with the executive branch’s decisions on national security. He wrote that the approach was “not only unprecedented—it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent.” This disagreement reflects the ongoing tension between judicial review and executive authority, especially in matters involving national security.
Although the Trump administration faced a setback, it did secure a minor legal victory regarding the procedures used to inform detainees of their rights under the Alien Enemies Act. The ruling may still be appealed to a larger panel of the Fifth Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the final outcome could reshape the application of the Alien Enemies Act in future administrations.
This case epitomizes the complex intersection of immigration law and national security, raising questions about the balance of power and the extent of executive authority in emergencies. As this legal battle continues, the implications for future policy and the treatment of migrants remain uncertain.
"*" indicates required fields
