Trump-appointed judge rejects use of Alien Enemies Act


Summary

Wartime law

A federal judge ruled the Trump administration cannot use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. The decision halts removals in South Texas and challenges the law’s application in peacetime.

Legal setback

The judge found the administration’s claims of a foreign “invasion” don’t meet the historic intent of the 1798 law. Deportations must now proceed under standard immigration statutes.

Next steps

The ruling may be appealed to the conservative 5th Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court. For now, deportations under the AEA remain blocked in South Texas.


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Wartime law

A federal judge ruled the Trump administration cannot use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. The decision halts removals in South Texas and challenges the law’s application in peacetime.

Legal setback

The judge found the administration’s claims of a foreign “invasion” don’t meet the historic intent of the 1798 law. Deportations must now proceed under standard immigration statutes.

Next steps

The ruling may be appealed to the conservative 5th Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court. For now, deportations under the AEA remain blocked in South Texas.


Full story

A federal judge in Texas has barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliations. The ruling applies to the Southern District of Texas, including cities such as Houston and McAllen, and represents the first permanent legal rejection of the administration’s invocation of the 1798 wartime statute.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a Trump appointee, issued the injunction on May 1. In his opinion, Rodriguez ruled that the proclamation exceeded the legal scope of the AEA. He said the U.S. used the law during wartime against enemy nationals and not for peacetime removal of individuals accused of domestic criminal activity.

What was the judge’s reasoning?

Rodriguez determined that allegations of criminal behavior, even involving violent gangs such as Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, do not constitute an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” under the historical meaning of the AEA. His interpretation supported arguments made by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents several detainees in the case.

The ruling does not block deportations under broader immigration laws like the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, it suspends use of the Alien Enemies Act for removals within the jurisdiction.

Who has it affected so far?

According to NPR and Reuters, the Trump administration has deported more than 130 Venezuelan men under the AEA to a high-security prison in El Salvador. Some of those men and their families deny any gang involvement, claiming the administration removed them without allowing a court challenge.

An image captured by a Reuters drone shows dozens of detainees standing in a courtyard and spelling out “SOS.”
Paul Ratje/Reuters

Drone footage recently captured detainees at a facility in Raymondville, Texas, spelling “SOS” in the yard. Some told reporters they feared being sent to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, where previously deported individuals are held under strict conditions.

How has the administration responded?

White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the policy in a statement to Reuters, asserting that Trump’s electoral mandate includes the removal of what the administration refers to as “terrorist illegal aliens.” The Department of Homeland Security said at least two of the individuals featured in news reports had prior criminal records or had admitted gang affiliations.

The administration maintains that deportations are not canceled — only on hold — while legal proceedings continue.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a jurisdiction considered among the most conservative in the country, will likely appeal the case. Legal experts cited by Reuters said the case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court has already ruled that the Trump administration must allow migrants deported under the AEA to contest their removal in court. However, it did not specify how much time the administration must give migrants for legal challenges.

Kaleb Gillespie (Video Editor) contributed to this report.
Tags: , , , ,

Why this story matters

The story highlights a legal challenge against the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations, emphasizing the limits of executive power and the importance of due process in immigration policies.

Legal precedent

The ruling by Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. marks the first court decision asserting limits on the executive use of wartime laws, establishing a precedent that restricts such powers to formal wartime conditions.

Executive authority

The case underscores a critical examination of presidential powers, particularly how far a president can go in interpreting century-old laws for modern applications without exceeding statutory limits.

Immigrant rights

This decision is crucial for immigrant rights, as it prevents the use of a historic law to bypass due process protections and highlights ongoing legal battles to uphold these rights against broad executive actions.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 345 media outlets

Context corner

Historically, the Alien Enemies Act was last utilized in World War II against Japanese-Americans. This precedent highlights the complexities and potential for abuse in applying old wartime laws to modern immigration issues, provoking debates about civil liberties and the protection of marginalized communities in contemporary contexts.

Debunking

Claims that the Trump administration's deportation efforts under the AEA were legally justified have been systematically debunked by Judge Rodriguez's ruling. The lack of substantive proof of an organized threat or invasion from the Tren de Aragua gang undermines the administration's legal rationale for deportations based on the AEA.

Global impact

The ruling against deportations based on the AEA could have wider ramifications for how other countries, especially Latin American nations, view U.S. immigration policy. It raises questions about cooperative agreements like those with El Salvador concerning detention and deportation, potentially affecting diplomatic relations on immigration matters.

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left framed the judge's decision as a limitation on executive authority, stressing the "unlawful" nature of the president's conduct and the possible interference with his deportation plans. They even underscored previous instances where the administration bypassed court rulings, using the phrase "notorious prison" to refer to the facilities where the migrants were sent.
  • Not enough coverage from media outlets in the center to provide a bias comparison.
  • Media outlets on the right focused on the "alleged" nature of the gang members' crimes, using the term "criminal illegals," and stressed the judge's acknowledgment that the decision does not usurp broader immigration enforcement authorities.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

345 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans, stating the law does not apply in this case.
  • U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. found that Trump's proclamation regarding the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua does not meet the legal definition of an "invasion."
  • The ruling is a formal permanent injunction against the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump has misused.
  • Rodriguez emphasized that the president cannot unilaterally define the conditions under which the act is invoked, as this would grant excessive executive power.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

  • On May 1, 2025, a federal judge prohibited the Trump administration from removing Venezuelan individuals from the South Texas region under a centuries-old wartime statute.
  • The court took action following a March proclamation by President Donald Trump asserting that the Venezuelan group Tren de Aragua was entering the United States and invoking special deportation authority under the Alien Enemies Act.
  • The administration identified the migrants as gang members and planned to deport them without usual court proceedings, using a law last applied during World War II to intern Japanese-Americans.
  • Judge Rodriguez acknowledged that there is no dispute over the Executive Branch’s authority to detain and deport non-citizens involved in criminal conduct, but he determined that the president’s use of the AEA in this instance goes beyond what the statute permits.
  • The ruling marks the initial official and lasting court order preventing the use of the Alien Enemies Act in this manner, reflecting the judiciary’s rejection of the administration’s interpretation of the law as applied to these Venezuelans.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • A federal judge in Texas ruled that President Donald Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans is unlawful, stating it was intended for wartime situations only.
  • Judge Fernando Rodriguez emphasized that the administration failed to demonstrate an organized armed attack as required by the Alien Enemies Act.
  • The court granted a writ of habeas corpus to three Venezuelan nationals, allowing them to contest their detention legally.
  • Rodriguez highlighted the Executive Branch's authority to enforce immigration laws but ruled the Alien Enemies Act was misapplied in this case.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™

Timeline

Timeline