The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made a significant ruling on Tuesday evening, denying President Trump’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan nationals illegally residing in the United States. In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel provided a detailed examination of the legal framework surrounding the act. The majority—consisting of Judges Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, and Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown, appointed by President Biden—concluded that there was no evidence of an “invasion or predatory incursion” that would permit such deportations under the AEA.
This decision is the first from a federal appeals court concerning Trump’s March 14 proclamation invoking the 1798 law to swiftly deport certain Venezuelan individuals. The panel’s ruling specifically addressed claims surrounding the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which had been portrayed by the Trump administration as engaging in hostile activities against U.S. soil.
Judge Southwick, writing for the majority, dismissed the assertion that Tren de Aragua constituted a “predatory incursion” under the AEA. The law provides sweeping authority to detain and deport citizens of enemy countries, but only when the nation is involved in war or faces a credible threat from another nation. Despite the administration’s claims, the court did not find sufficient evidence of such a threat.
This ruling follows a temporary stay issued by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, which prevented the Trump administration from proceeding with deportations under the AEA. The high court noted inadequacies in the due process granted to the Venezuelans targeted for deportation. “Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the unsigned order stated.
Following the Supreme Court’s intervention, the case returned to the Fifth Circuit, which ultimately sided against President Trump. This decision builds upon earlier district court rulings that have already challenged the administration’s approach to invoke the AEA for deporting Venezuelan citizens.
Interestingly, not all courts have reached the same conclusion. A federal judge in Pennsylvania recently provided a contrasting opinion, stating that President Trump can invoke the AEA for deporting members of Tren de Aragua. This divergence illustrates a fractured legal landscape surrounding the invocation of a nearly 225-year-old statute in contemporary immigration policy.
The implications of such legal battles extend beyond technical judicial considerations. They resonate deeply within the political realm and reflect ongoing tensions regarding immigration policy and national security. The Fifth Circuit’s majority decision underscores the complex interplay of power between the executive branch and the judiciary, particularly when it comes to issues deemed critical to the nation’s security.
As this issue continues to unfold, attention will likely remain focused on further developments in immigration law and the application of historical statutes in modern contexts. The contrasting decisions from different courts indicate that this legal debate is far from settled, as the nation grapples with how to effectively manage immigration, particularly in times of concern over public safety.
"*" indicates required fields
