Immigration Invasion — Wartime Powers?

Trump’s Use of the Alien Enemies Act: Legal Challenges and Due Process Concerns

In March 2025, the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, sparking a heated legal battle over the law’s applicability and the rights of detainees. This rarely used wartime statute has been at the center of controversy, with federal courts, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, weighing in on its use. Below, we explore the legal rulings, due process concerns, and the ongoing debate surrounding this contentious policy.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act?

Passed in 1798, the Alien Enemies Act allows the president to detain or deport citizens of a hostile nation during a declared war or an “invasion or predatory incursion.” Historically, it was used during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, notably to intern Japanese, German, and Italian citizens during WWII. The Trump administration argued that Tren de Aragua, designated a foreign terrorist organization in February 2025, constituted an “invasion” due to its alleged ties to the Venezuelan government, justifying rapid deportations without standard immigration hearings.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling

On September 2, 2025, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a significant ruling, declaring the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua members unlawful. In a 2-1 decision, the court found that the gang’s activities did not meet the statutory threshold of an “invasion or predatory incursion.” Judge Leslie Southwick, joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, emphasized that the gang’s actions, while harmful, did not constitute an organized, armed attack directed by Venezuela’s government. The ruling granted a preliminary injunction, halting AEA-based deportations in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

The dissenting judge, Andrew Oldham, agreed on the need for adequate notice but did not challenge the majority’s interpretation of “invasion.” This decision marked the first appellate ruling on the substantive legality of Trump’s AEA use, reinforcing similar findings by district judges in Texas, Colorado, and New York. Read more about the Fifth Circuit ruling [Web ID: 1].

Supreme Court’s Focus on Due Process

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the core question of whether the AEA can be lawfully applied in this context. Instead, it has focused on ensuring due process for detainees. On April 7, 2025, in a 5-4 decision, the Court lifted a nationwide injunction by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, ruling that challenges to AEA deportations must be filed via habeas corpus petitions in the districts where detainees are held, not in Washington, D.C. The Court emphasized that detainees must be given “reasonable time” to contest their removal, though it did not define a specific period. Learn more about the April 7 ruling [Web ID: 2].

On April 19, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order, temporarily blocking deportations from the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Texas, citing insufficient notice. This followed reports that detainees were given only 24 hours’ notice, often in English-only forms, without clear information on their rights. On May 16, 2025, in a 7-2 decision, the Court extended this block, stating that 24 hours was inadequate and that detainees needed more time and resources to challenge their deportations. The case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit to determine appropriate notice periods. Details on the May 16 decision [Web ID: 22].

The Court highlighted the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, underscoring the risks of hasty removals. More on the Supreme Court’s concerns [Web ID: 4].

Due Process Violations and Legal Challenges

The Trump administration’s rapid deportation of 137 Venezuelans to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, hours after a judicial block, raised significant concerns. The ACLU, representing detainees, filed multiple lawsuits, arguing that many deportees were not gang members and were denied a chance to contest their removal. Federal judges in six states issued temporary or permanent injunctions against the AEA’s use, with a notable ruling by Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. in Texas on May 1, 2025, permanently barring AEA-based deportations in the Southern District of Texas. Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, ruled that the administration’s claim of an “invasion” did not align with the AEA’s requirements. Read about Rodriguez’s ruling [Web ID: 21].

However, a Pennsylvania judge on May 13, 2025, upheld the AEA’s use, requiring 21 days’ notice, marking a rare win for the administration. Details on the Pennsylvania ruling [Web ID: 19].

What’s Next?

The Fifth Circuit’s September 2 ruling is a major setback for the Trump administration, but it can appeal to the full Fifth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. Given conflicting lower court rulings and the case’s national significance, the Supreme Court is likely to eventually rule on the AEA’s legality. The debate hinges on whether a criminal gang’s activities can constitute an “invasion” and whether the administration’s terrorist designation of Tren de Aragua justifies wartime powers. A declassified memo questioning Venezuela’s direct control over the gang weakens the administration’s case, but the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court could shift the outcome.

The controversy underscores broader tensions over executive power, immigration policy, and due process. As legal battles continue, the fate of Venezuelan detainees—and the scope of the AEA—remains uncertain. More on the ongoing legal fight [Web ID: 11].

Key Takeaways

• The Fifth Circuit ruled that the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful, as Tren de Aragua’s actions do not constitute an “invasion.”
• The Supreme Court has focused on ensuring due process, requiring adequate notice and habeas corpus opportunities, but has not ruled on the AEA’s legality.
• Multiple lawsuits by the ACLU and others have challenged the AEA’s use, with most courts rejecting it, though a Pennsylvania judge upheld it with conditions.
• The case is likely headed to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling, with significant implications for immigration policy and executive authority.

Stay informed as this legal saga unfolds, with the Supreme Court poised to play a pivotal role in defining the limits of presidential power in immigration enforcement.