US Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Venezuelans
Former US President Donald Trump suffered a major legal setback on Tuesday when a federal appeals court blocked his administration’s attempt to deport a group of Venezuelans accused of being members of the notorious Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals found that Trump’s proclamation misused a centuries-old law that grants the executive extraordinary powers only in times of war or invasion.
The decision is the first direct ruling by a federal appeals court on Trump’s March 14 presidential proclamation that sought to use the Alien Enemies Act as a legal basis for accelerated deportations. The ruling also signals a broad judicial resistance against the administration’s attempts to unilaterally declare an emergency in the area of immigration without adequate congressional or judicial oversight.
A Divided Ruling in the 5th Circuit
The case was decided by a 2-1 majority, with Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of George W. Bush, writing the majority opinion. Southwick was joined by Circuit Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, an appointee of President Joe Biden. The two judges concluded that the Trump administration had overstepped its authority by attempting to classify gang activity as a “predatory invasion,” one of the narrow circumstances under which the Alien Enemies Act can be applied.
Judge Southwick’s opinion emphasized that the statute, first enacted in 1798, applies only under formal wartime circumstances or in cases where the nation faces direct invasion by a foreign power. He wrote that the administration’s claims failed to demonstrate such circumstances, rejecting the idea that criminal gang activity by Venezuelan nationals is an act of war.
Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of Trump, dissented, supporting the administration’s broad interpretation of the law. Oldham argued that the threat posed by the Tren de Aragua, a violent gang with alleged ties to the Venezuelan government, should be treated as a “predatory invasion”, giving the president broad discretion to act in the interest of national security.
The Alien Enemies Act and Its Historical Context
The Alien Enemies Act is part of a set of four laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798 during heightened tensions between the United States and France. Although most of the other statutes expired or were repealed, the Alien Enemies Act remains in force, although it is rarely used. It gives the president broad powers to detain, restrict, or deport citizens of foreign countries considered enemies during wartime.
In practice, the law has been used sparingly, particularly during World War I and World War II, when German, Italian, and Japanese citizens faced detention and deportation. However, its use outside of war is nearly unprecedented. Legal scholars have long cautioned against its misuse in peacetime, warning that it could undermine constitutional safeguards and expand executive power without adequate checks.
By trying to use the law against Venezuelan citizens accused of gang activity, the Trump administration pushed the law into uncharted territory. The appeals court’s ruling shows that the judiciary is unwilling to allow such an expansion of presidential authority without clear evidence of war or invasion.
The Case of the Venezuelan Detainees
The dispute before the Fifth Circuit arose when some Venezuelan citizens detained at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas, challenged their pending deportation. These detainees were accused of being members of a violent international gang called Tren de Aragua, which has been increasing its activities in South America and is also reportedly gaining a foothold in the United States.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the detainees, denied the government’s claims of gang membership and argued that the use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context is unconstitutional. According to the ACLU, the administration tried to deport these people without any prior notice and without any meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal in court.
Lee Gelrant, a senior attorney for the ACLU, called the appeals court’s decision an important check on executive power. “The court correctly blocked the Trump administration’s use of a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration,” Gelrant said. This is an extremely significant decision, which puts an end to the administration’s attitude that it can easily declare an emergency without the oversight of the courts.
Supreme Court’s Early Involvement
The case has reached the U.S. Supreme Court a few times. In May, the high court intervened when the administration attempted to immediately deport detainees just a day after issuing removal notices. The Supreme Court halted the removals and criticized the administration’s process, saying that “a notice issued only about 24 hours before removal, lacking information about how to exercise due process rights to challenge that removal, is clearly not fair.”
In that decision, two conservative justices—Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—dissented, highlighting ideological differences even within the court on issues of executive power and immigration enforcement. Although the Supreme Court has not yet considered the propriety of Trump’s reliance on the Alien Enemies Act, it has expressed concern about the administration’s hasty and unclear procedures.
Now that the Fifth Circuit has found against the administration, legal experts widely expect the case to return to the Supreme Court for a decisive ruling. If that happens, it could pose a historic test of the president’s authority over immigration and national security matters.
Administration’s Claims of Gang Invasion
In his March 14 announcement, Trump argued that Tren de Aragua posed a serious threat to the United States and labeled the gang a state-sponsored terrorist organization backed by the Venezuelan government. He claimed its presence in the U.S. was tantamount to an invasion and justified the use of the Alien Enemies Act for swift detention and deportation.
The administration’s characterization of the gang as a foreign intrusion was a centerpiece of its legal argument. By equating criminal activity to acts of war, Trump sought to circumvent traditional immigration law, which requires due process and individual hearings. However, courts have been skeptical of this broad definition and questioned whether gang-related offenses, no matter how severe, could rise to the level of an invasion.
Critics say such an interpretation would set a dangerous precedent, allowing future administrations to exercise emergency powers at will, effectively bypassing normal constitutional checks.
Broader Legal and Political Implications
The appeals court’s decision has broad implications for the scope of presidential power. Had the judiciary upheld Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, it would have opened the way for presidents to use wartime authority even in peacetime whenever they deemed it necessary. Such a precedent could have far-reaching consequences not just for immigration, but also for civil liberties and the balance of power between the executive and the courts.
Politically, the decision reignites the debate over immigration policy and the limits of executive action. Trump, who has made immigration a centerpiece of his political agenda, has repeatedly tried to frame border security as a national emergency that requires extraordinary measures. The courts’ resistance to such a framing underscores the challenges he faces in translating electoral rhetoric into legally sustainable policies.
For the Venezuelan community, the case highlights the precarious position of migrants caught between US immigration politics and broader geopolitical conflicts. Many Venezuelans have fled abroad to escape domestic political and economic turmoil, where they face suspicion and hostility.
Next Steps in the Legal Battle
The Trump administration has the option of requesting an en banc reconsideration before the full Fifth Circuit, which could delay a final resolution. However, given the importance of the case, most legal observers expect it to eventually reach the Supreme Court, where the balance of views on executive authority will determine the outcome.
In the meantime, deportations under the Alien Enemies Act will remain on hold. The injunction ensures that Venezuelan detainees will not be removed until the courts make a final decision. The decision is also a temporary safeguard for others who may face similar action under the law.
It is uncertain whether the Supreme Court will uphold the narrow interpretation of the act set forth by the Fifth Circuit or grant the executive branch broader leeway. It is clear that this case will test the limits of presidential power in a way not seen since the Cold War.
Final Word
The Fifth Circuit’s rejection of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act marks a turning point in the struggle over the balance of power in U.S. immigration law. By affirming that the statute cannot be used to cover peacetime gang activity, the Court has placed a significant curb on executive authority.
For Venezuelan detainees, the decision grants them relief from speedy deportation and ensures that their due process rights will be protected until the case is resolved. For the broader public, the case is a reminder of the importance of judicial oversight in protecting constitutional principles from encroachment.
As this legal battle continues, the nation’s eyes will be on the Supreme Court, where the final decision will not only shape immigration enforcement but also define the scope of presidential power for years to come.
Click Here to subscribe to our newsletters and get the latest updates directly to your inbox.