Trump-appointed judge blocks use of 1798 Alien Enemies Act in Venezuelan deportations
Pranjal Chandra | May 01, 2025, 23:00 IST
( Image credit : AP )
A Trump-appointed judge blocked the administration's attempt to deport Venezuelan nationals, alleged members of Tren de Aragua, using the Alien Enemies Act. Judge Rodriguez ruled that declaring the gang an 'invasion' exceeded presidential authority under the AEA, typically reserved for wartime. The court granted a permanent injunction, limiting the use of antiquated emergency powers in immigration enforcement.
A Trump-appointed federal judge has issued a landmark ruling rejecting the Trump administration’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the criminal gang Tren de Aragua.
In a 36-page opinion, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. of the Southern District of Texas ruled that President Trump’s March 15 proclamation, which declared Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization engaged in an “invasion” of the United States, overstepped the statutory authority granted under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
Rodriguez emphasized that while the administration retains power to deport noncitizens under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), invoking the AEA typically used only in wartime was unjustified in this context.
The ruling represents the first judicial determination on the merits of invoking the 18th-century law during peacetime. Previously used only during the War of 1812, WWI, and WWII, the AEA allows the President to detain or deport nationals of enemy nations during declared wars or invasions.
Rodriguez’s ruling firmly rejected the administration’s broad definition of “invasion,” writing that the term implies an organized, armed force entering the country in a manner resembling war or large-scale violence not dispersed criminal activity.
This directly undermines Trump’s legal rationale for using the AEA against Tren de Aragua, which the administration argues is a transnational threat warranting wartime powers.
Rodriguez also granted class status to the plaintiffs Venezuelan nationals detained under the AEA and issued a permanent injunction barring the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act for further deportations of that class.
However, the ruling leaves the door open for removals under other laws, noting that immigration proceedings may continue under the INA.
ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who led the challenge, called the ruling a major precedent:
This decision not only curbs the administration's use of antiquated emergency powers but also raises questions about the scope of executive authority under peacetime immigration law.
This ruling puts a constitutional and historical brake on Trump’s aggressive use of wartime powers in immigration enforcement, signaling that even his appointees are drawing limits around the use of 18th-century statutes for 21st-century immigration policy.
In a 36-page opinion, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. of the Southern District of Texas ruled that President Trump’s March 15 proclamation, which declared Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization engaged in an “invasion” of the United States, overstepped the statutory authority granted under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
Rodriguez emphasized that while the administration retains power to deport noncitizens under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), invoking the AEA typically used only in wartime was unjustified in this context.
The ruling represents the first judicial determination on the merits of invoking the 18th-century law during peacetime. Previously used only during the War of 1812, WWI, and WWII, the AEA allows the President to detain or deport nationals of enemy nations during declared wars or invasions.
Court defines "Invasion" narrowly
This directly undermines Trump’s legal rationale for using the AEA against Tren de Aragua, which the administration argues is a transnational threat warranting wartime powers.
Class action and permanent injunction granted
However, the ruling leaves the door open for removals under other laws, noting that immigration proceedings may continue under the INA.
Legal significance
This decision not only curbs the administration's use of antiquated emergency powers but also raises questions about the scope of executive authority under peacetime immigration law.
This ruling puts a constitutional and historical brake on Trump’s aggressive use of wartime powers in immigration enforcement, signaling that even his appointees are drawing limits around the use of 18th-century statutes for 21st-century immigration policy.