Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump's Use of Wartime Law for Venezuelan Deportations
Fifth Circuit ruling marks first appellate challenge to administration's use of 1798 Alien Enemies Act
A federal appeals court delivered a significant blow to President Donald Trump's deportation strategy Tuesday evening, ruling that his administration unlawfully invoked an 18th-century wartime statute to expedite the removal of Venezuelan migrants allegedly connected to the Tren de Aragua criminal gang. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected Trump's assertion that the presence of Venezuelan gang members constituted an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" sufficient to justify use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, marking the first time a federal appellate court has addressed this controversial application of the wartime law.
The ruling represents a notable rebuke from one of the nation's most conservative appellate courts, creating a pathway for the issue to reach the Supreme Court for definitive resolution. The decision immediately blocks enforcement of the act in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi — states within the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction.
Court Rejects 'Invasion' Claims
Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority, dismissed the Trump administration's legal justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act. "A country's encouragement of its residents and citizens to enter this country unlawfully is not the modern equivalent of deploying an armed, organized force to occupy, disrupt, or otherwise harm the United States," Southwick wrote, according to The New York Times.
The majority opinion emphasized that there was no evidence that the mass immigration constituted "an armed, organized force or forces" as required by the statute. "We conclude that the government has failed to prove the [Alien Enemies Act] was properly invoked," the court declared.
The Alien Enemies Act grants the government sweeping authority to detain and deport citizens from "hostile" nations, but only during wartime or when facing an invasion or "predatory incursion." Before Trump's presidency, the law had been used only three times in American history, exclusively during declared wars.
"This is a critically important ruling reining in the administration's unprecedented view that it can declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts." — Lee Gelernt, ACLU attorney
Due Process Concerns Highlighted
The appeals court also addressed concerns about the adequacy of legal protections for those facing deportation under the act. The majority found that the government's practice of providing notice just seven days before removal "appears to comply with the [Supreme] Court's requirements." However, this aspect received support from only two judges.
This timing issue had previously drawn criticism from the Supreme Court. In May, the high court blocked deportations after finding that "providing notice roughly 24 hours before removal, lacking information on how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, certainly does not meet acceptable standards".
Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represented Venezuelan detainees in the case, characterized the decision as "critically important" for constitutional governance. "The appeals court correctly determined that the administration's unprecedented application of the Alien Enemies Act was illegal as it contravenes Congress' intent in enacting the law," Gelernt stated.
Dissenting Voice Reflects Political Divisions
Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, issued a dissenting opinion expressing support for the administration's position. While details of his dissent were not fully available, CNN reported that he argued Trump was being held to a different standard than previous presidents.
The split decision reflects broader tensions within the federal judiciary over Trump's immigration enforcement policies. Even within the conservative Fifth Circuit, two judges — one appointed by George W. Bush and another by Joe Biden — found common ground in rejecting the administration's legal theory.
Supreme Court Involvement Expected
Legal experts anticipate the case will advance to the Supreme Court, where justices would provide definitive guidance on Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. The high court has twice addressed aspects of the law's application without ruling on its fundamental legality.
In April, the Supreme Court allowed deportations under the act to continue while requiring that immigrants receive "a reasonable time" to challenge their removals. The court also mandated that such challenges be filed in federal districts where detainees are held, rather than in courts located elsewhere.
A second April ruling temporarily halted deportations of Venezuelan men in northern Texas, with the court later extending this block in May after criticizing the administration's rushed deportation timeline.
Broader Immigration Enforcement Impact
Trump positioned the Alien Enemies Act at the center of his immigration enforcement strategy after taking office. In March, he issued a presidential proclamation leveraging the law's extensive powers, claiming Tren de Aragua was conducting an "invasion" and "predatory incursion" into the United States.
More than 200 individuals have been expelled from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act and sent to a detention facility in El Salvador, where they remained for months before being released as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, according to NPR.
The administration's approach has faced consistent legal challenges across multiple jurisdictions. In May, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. in South Texas issued a permanent injunction against the act's use in his district, ruling that Trump had "overstepped the legal limits" of the wartime statute.
Historical Context and Legal Precedent
The Alien Enemies Act, enacted initially during fears of war with France, has been rarely used throughout American history. Previous invocations occurred during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II — all during formally declared conflicts.
Judge Rodriguez's earlier ruling noted that the Tren de Aragua threat did not meet the criteria for invoking the Alien Enemies Act, despite acknowledging the gang's harmful activities. "The Court determines that [the activities of Tren de Aragua] do not align with the straightforward, common definition of 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion' as intended by the AEA," Rodriguez wrote.
Government Response and Next Steps
The Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded to the Fifth Circuit ruling. However, the Justice Department is expected to appeal the decision to either the full appeals court or directly to the Supreme Court.
Trump administration officials have maintained that current immigration patterns constitute a national security threat requiring extraordinary measures. On Tuesday, the U.S. announced an attack on a vessel carrying 11 alleged Tren de Aragua members in international Caribbean waters, resulting in all individuals' deaths, with Trump labeling them "narcoterrorists".
Constitutional Implications
The appeals court decision raises fundamental questions about the limits of presidential emergency powers during peacetime. Legal scholars have noted that accepting Trump's broad interpretation of "invasion" could dramatically expand executive authority over immigration enforcement.
The Fifth Circuit judges emphasized that their injunction applied solely to the Alien Enemies Act and would not prevent the government from using other legal mechanisms to remove foreign terrorists from the country. However, the ruling establishes important precedent for limiting presidential invocation of wartime statutes during peacetime immigration enforcement.
As this high-stakes legal battle advances toward likely Supreme Court review, the outcome will determine not only the fate of Venezuelan migrants facing deportation but also the broader scope of presidential emergency powers in immigration enforcement. The decision represents a critical test of constitutional checks and balances in an era of expanded executive authority claims.