Brownsville, Texas — A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Venezuelans under a historical wartime law, declaring the action unlawful. U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. asserted that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 cannot be invoked against individuals whom the administration has labeled as gang members.
This decision marks a significant legal setback for the administration, which had claimed that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua threatened national security by invading the United States. “The President’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to its plain meaning,” Judge Rodriguez wrote in his ruling. While he acknowledged that the Executive Branch has the authority to manage the detention and deportation of criminals, he maintained that this particular invocation overstepped legal boundaries.
The Alien Enemies Act has a sparse history, having been employed only three times before, notably during World War II for internment of Japanese-Americans. The recent proclamation initiated a wave of legal challenges as officials sought to transfer individuals identified as gang members to a facility in El Salvador. Rodriguez’s permanent injunction represents the first formal rebuke against the administration’s use of this law, emphasizing that Congress did not intend for it to be applied in such a manner.
Rodriguez’s comments underscored that the law has been historically used only during declared wars. Although the Trump administration argued that Tren de Aragua operated under instructions from the Venezuelan government, the judge concluded that its actions did not constitute an invasion as defined by the law. “The Proclamation does not suggest an organized and armed group is attempting to invade with the goal of conquering or controlling the U.S.,” he stated, determining that the language used did not align with the definition required for an invasion under the Alien Enemies Act.
If the administration chooses to appeal the ruling, it will head to the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which has previously challenged executive overreach in immigration matters. Additionally, the administration could potentially escalate the case to the U.S. Supreme Court with an emergency motion for a stay pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court has prior involvement in similar issues, ruling that individuals facing removal must have adequate time to contest their deportation. However, it has not defined what constitutes a reasonable timeframe for such proceedings. It’s anticipated that, irrespective of the outcome in the 5th Circuit, either side could seek emergency review from the Supreme Court, which may take months to render a decision.
This case is a fragment of a larger legal battle ignited by the Trump administration’s proclamation. Earlier litigation in Washington, D.C., initiated by the ACLU, resulted in a temporary halt to deportations, with a judge ordering the administration to stop flights headed to El Salvador. Subsequent efforts by the Supreme Court sought to protect migrants in North Texas, where deportations were reportedly being planned.
This ongoing situation highlights the contentious relationship between the Trump administration’s immigration policies and judicial oversight, revealing the complexities of legal interpretations surrounding the use of wartime laws in contemporary contexts.