Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Use of Wartime Law to Deport Venezuelans
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered the Trump administration to halt its use of an obscure 18th-century law to deport Venezuelans without a hearing. On Saturday, Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary injunction blocking the government from deporting immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law historically used during wartime to detain or deport nationals of enemy states. The judge also directed that any flights carrying Venezuelan immigrants under the law should return to the U.S., emphasizing the need for immediate compliance. This ruling came shortly after the Trump administration invoked the law to target alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, a Venezuelan criminal organization, as part of a broader effort to deport unauthorized immigrants.
The Legal Battle Over the Alien Enemies Act
The Trump administration’s executive order, published on Saturday, declared that Venezuelans aged 14 or older, residing in the U.S. without authorization, and allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, were "liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed." The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, allows for the summary deportation of nationals from countries at war with the U.S. However, Judge Boasberg questioned the administration’s interpretation of the law, stating that its provisions do not apply to individuals from Venezuela, as the U.S. is not at war with the country. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing five Venezuelan men accused of gang ties, filed a lawsuit arguing that the law was being misapplied and that the deportations violated due process rights.
Flights Ordered to Return and Government’s Appeal
During an emergency hearing on Saturday, Judge Boasberg expressed concern that flights carrying Venezuelan immigrants under the executive order were already en route. Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney, confirmed that at least two planes were believed to be in the air. The judge ordered these flights to return to the U.S., stating, "This is something you need to make sure is complied with immediately." However, a government lawyer, Drew Ensign, argued that discussing operational details could raise national security concerns. Despite the judge’s ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal later that day, with Attorney General Pam Bondi accusing the court of prioritizing "terrorists over the safety of Americans."
The ACLU’s Challenge and Broader Implications
The ACLU’s lawsuit alleged that the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was unconstitutional and unprecedented. The five Venezuelan men at the center of the case deny any affiliation with the Tren de Aragua gang, with one man claiming he was mistakenly identified due to his tattoos. Judge Boasberg initially issued a limited order protecting these five individuals but later broadened his ruling to apply to all noncitizens in U.S. custody who could be deported under the law. Legal experts warn that if the administration’s interpretation of the law is upheld, it could set a dangerous precedent, enabling the government to deport other immigrants, including minors, without court hearings or due process.
Constitutional Concerns and Expert Analysis
The case has sparked significant constitutional debate, particularly over the scope of presidential authority during times of peace. Noah Feldman, a Harvard constitutional law professor, noted that the outcome of the case may hinge on how much deference courts grant to the president’s claim of a "threatened incursion" by unauthorized immigrants. President Trump has frequently referred to unauthorized immigration as an "invasion," framing it as a national security threat. However, Judge Boasberg and the ACLU argue that the Alien Enemies Act was never intended to apply to individuals from countries with which the U.S. is not at war.
A Broader Pattern of Aggressive Immigration Policies
The Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is part of a larger effort to expand its authority over immigration enforcement. Since returning to office, President Trump has pursued aggressive deportation policies, including a recent executive order titled "Protecting the American People Against Invasion." Critics, including legal and human rights groups, have condemned the administration’s actions as a troubling erosion of due process and an overreach of executive power. As the case moves through the courts, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, it could have far-reaching implications for immigration law, national security, and the balance of power in the U.S. government.
