Appeals Court Stops Trump’s Effort to Use Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelan Deportations
A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has delivered a significant setback to former President Donald Trump’s effort to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan migrants using the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law. The court ruled that the administration’s claim that these individuals constituted an "invasion" of the United States does not hold legal merit, halting the fast-track deportation process.
Background on Trump’s Use of the Alien Enemies Act
In early 2025, the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify the rapid removal of migrants alleged to be affiliated with Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. The law, dating back to the 18th century, grants the president authority to deport citizens of enemy nations during declared wartime or invasions. The administration contended that members of this gang represented a threat to U.S. security, characterizing the migration as a form of hostile incursion.
The Appeals Court Decision
On September 2, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court ruled 2-1 against Trump’s application of the Alien Enemies Act. The majority opinion, delivered by Judge Leslie Southwick, stated that there was no legal basis to classify the presence of these migrants as an "invasion" or "predatory incursion," which are prerequisites for the law's invocation. The court granted a preliminary injunction halting deportations under this statute in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
The court’s ruling emphasized that encouraging or facilitating illegal migration does not equate to the kind of armed invasion for which the Alien Enemies Act was designed. Judge Southwick wrote, “A country encouraging its residents to enter illegally does not equate to deploying an armed, organized force to invade or harm the United States.”
Implications for Due Process
Legal advocates, including Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who represented the Venezuelan migrants, hailed the decision as a crucial affirmation of the rule of law and due process rights. Gelernt remarked, “This is a tremendous victory for the rule of law,” highlighting that the president cannot unilaterally declare a military emergency and bypass judicial oversight to expedite deportations.
Previously, the Supreme Court had paused some of the deportations and ruled that migrants must be given reasonable time to challenge their removals and that such hearings should occur in federal districts where detainees are held.
Remaining Legal and Policy Questions
While the appellate ruling does not prevent the government from pursuing deportations through other legal channels, it limits the administration’s ability to use wartime powers in peacetime immigration enforcement. The ruling sets the stage for further legal battles, potentially reaching the Supreme Court to definitively determine the appropriateness of using the Alien Enemies Act in immigration matters.
The administration has argued that the Venezuelan government supports Tren de Aragua and that their members pose a national security threat, justifying harsh enforcement measures. However, the court’s decision signals judicial skepticism of such broad interpretations without clear evidence of wartime hostilities.
Historical Context and Future Outlook
The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked only three times in U.S. history, exclusively during declared wars such as the War of 1812 and the World Wars. Applying this statute to migrant deportations represents a novel and controversial use that courts appear reluctant to endorse without traditional war conditions.
This ruling marks an important moment in the ongoing debate over immigration policy, executive authority, and the balance between national security and civil liberties. It underscores the necessity of judicial checks on executive power concerning immigration enforcement and the treatment of vulnerable migrant populations.
In summary, the Fifth Circuit’s decision curtails the Trump administration’s attempt to use historic wartime powers to remove Venezuelan migrants rapidly and reinforces protections for migrants’ legal rights amid complex immigration challenges in the United States. The case continues to evolve, reflecting broader tensions over immigration policy and executive power in modern America.