Federal Court Blocks Use of Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelan Deportations

In a significant legal decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the Trump administration's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The court's 2-1 ruling, issued on September 2, 2025, determined that the administration failed to demonstrate an "invasion or predatory incursion," a necessary condition under the Act.

The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, grants the U.S. president authority to detain or deport nationals of a foreign nation during times of declared war or when an invasion or predatory incursion is occurring. Historically, it has been invoked during the War of 1812 and both World Wars to detain or deport individuals from nations with which the U.S. was at war. Its application outside of these contexts is unprecedented.

On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, asserting that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was conducting "irregular warfare" against the United States. The proclamation declared that all Venezuelan citizens aged 14 or older who are members of Tren de Aragua and are within the U.S. are liable to be apprehended and removed as alien enemies.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other rights groups promptly filed lawsuits challenging the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations. On March 15, 2025, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deportations, stating that the terms "invasion" and "predatory incursion" in the law relate to hostile acts perpetrated by enemy nations, and that the law likely did not support the administration's actions.

Despite the restraining order, the administration proceeded with deportations, leading to further legal battles. The 5th Circuit's recent ruling is the first federal appellate decision on this matter, affirming that the administration's actions did not meet the criteria set forth in the Alien Enemies Act.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, granted a preliminary injunction against the deportations. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Leslie Southwick and joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, stated that the administration failed to demonstrate that Tren de Aragua's activities constituted an "invasion or predatory incursion" as required by the Alien Enemies Act. Judge Andrew Oldham dissented, arguing that the ruling undermines presidential authority in foreign affairs.

This ruling has significant implications for immigration policy and presidential authority. It challenges the administration's broad interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act and sets a precedent for the limits of executive power in immigration enforcement. The decision also underscores the judiciary's role in checking executive actions that may overstep legal boundaries.

Tren de Aragua is a Venezuelan criminal organization that originated in the Aragua state prison system. Over time, it expanded its operations beyond prison walls, engaging in activities such as drug trafficking, extortion, and human smuggling. The gang has been implicated in various criminal activities across South America and has been accused of infiltrating migrant routes to expand its influence.

The administration's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members has raised concerns about due process and the potential for wrongful deportations. Critics argue that such actions could lead to the stigmatization of entire immigrant communities and undermine trust in law enforcement. The court's ruling may also influence future immigration policies and the treatment of migrants from countries experiencing political and economic crises.

The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked sparingly in U.S. history, primarily during times of declared war. Its use in the current context is unprecedented, as it targets individuals based on alleged gang affiliations rather than nationality during wartime. This case may set a legal precedent regarding the scope of the Act and the extent of presidential authority in immigration matters.

The 5th Circuit's decision represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary in matters of national security and immigration. As the administration considers its next steps, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court, this case underscores the enduring importance of checks and balances in the American legal system.