Federal court blocks Trump’s wartime deportation tactic targeting Venezuelans

Department of Research, Studies and International News -03-05-2025

In a landmark legal decision, a federal judge in Texas has permanently barred the Trump administration from using a centuries-old wartime statute to expel Venezuelan nationals from the United States. This judgment represents the first permanent injunction of its kind and could significantly influence future immigration enforcement efforts driven by national security rhetoric.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., who was appointed by Donald Trump in 2018, issued a 36-page ruling prohibiting the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) as a legal foundation for deporting Venezuelans in South Texas. The decision specifically limits its application within the Southern District of Texas, an area that includes major cities like Houston.

The ruling addresses a controversial move made by Trump earlier this year, when he invoked the Alien Enemies Act in an executive proclamation on March 15. His administration sought to use the law to target members of the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua, portraying the gang as a direct threat to national security. Trump described their activities as amounting to an “invasion” and a “predatory incursion,” invoking language associated with wartime emergencies to justify expedited deportations.

However, Judge Rodriguez found these arguments unconvincing. He acknowledged the gang’s criminal conduct as harmful, but ultimately concluded that their actions did not meet the historical or legal definitions required to apply the Alien Enemies Act. “The Court concludes that the activities do not fall within the plain, ordinary meaning of ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’ as required by the statute,” he wrote. “The President’s use of the AEA exceeds its legal limits and is therefore unlawful.”

The Alien Enemies Act, dating back to the 18th century, permits the detention and removal of nationals from enemy countries during declared wars or invasions. Historically, it has been invoked only three times, most notably during World War II, when it facilitated the internment of Japanese Americans and other foreign nationals, a policy the U.S. government has since condemned and compensated survivors for.

Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates have criticized Trump’s use of the law outside of wartime. His administration’s efforts mark the first instance in U.S. history where the AEA was used during peacetime, and specifically against undocumented immigrants accused of gang affiliation.

While Thursday’s ruling is the most definitive to date, it follows a string of similar cases. Judges in states including Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C., have issued temporary orders blocking the law’s application. One of the more high-profile incidents occurred in Washington, where three planes carrying deportees were flown to El Salvador despite a court order halting such removals. The judge in that case, James Boasberg, later found probable cause that the administration was in contempt of court.

Civil rights groups, particularly the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have played a central role in challenging these deportations. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt praised Thursday’s outcome, stating: “The court ruled the president can’t unilaterally declare an invasion and use wartime powers during peacetime. This law was never intended for such use.”

Adriana Piñon, the ACLU’s legal director for Texas, echoed these sentiments, framing the ruling as a safeguard against unchecked executive power. “This decision is a vital step in preventing unconstitutional actions that have sown fear in immigrant communities, especially along the southern border,” she said. “Immigrants have always been an essential part of our nation and are protected by the Constitution.”

The political ramifications of the case are also drawing attention. Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have denounced the administration’s tactics as unconstitutional. “Trump’s misuse of the Alien Enemies Act is a blatant attempt to bypass due process,” Schumer posted on social media. “The courts are stepping in, and we must continue defending the rule of law.”

Despite the setback, Trump’s legal team is expected to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a court known for its conservative leanings. The appeal process could potentially escalate the case to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a broader constitutional debate on executive powers during immigration enforcement.

As the legal battle unfolds, Thursday’s ruling sends a clear message: the invocation of wartime laws must meet strict criteria and cannot be arbitrarily applied to domestic immigration issues without judicial oversight.