On Tuesday, a federal appeals court made a significant ruling against President Trump, effectively halting his use of an 18th-century law designed for wartime to deport Venezuelan migrants quickly. The court concluded there was “no invasion or predatory incursion” taking place.
The Trump administration had previously deported numerous individuals, claiming they were part of the Tren de Aragua gang, leveraging the Alien Enemies Act from 1798. This obscure legislation allows for the removal of foreign nationals during times of perceived national emergencies. Many of those deported found themselves in a supermax facility in El Salvador, while some were returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange that occurred in July.
This courtroom battle has been fueled by numerous legal challenges, with many contending that the U.S. is not currently experiencing an “invasion” and that the deported migrants were not afforded adequate due process in appealing their expulsions. A CBS investigation previously revealed that numerous migrants dispatched to El Salvador had clean criminal records.
The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit represents the latest legal set-back for the Trump administration’s reliance on the Alien Enemies Act. A panel of three judges issued this decision, with one dissenting opinion, stating that the conditions involving Tren de Aragua did not equate to an “invasion” or a harmful incursion.
The administration has contended that Tren de Aragua’s activities constitute illegal migration on a mass scale. However, the appellate court dismissed this assertion. “If a nation encourages its people to breach immigration laws, it’s not akin to sending armed forces to invade America,” they said, emphasizing there is no proof of organized military-like threats behind the mass migration.
The court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the use of the Alien Enemies Act for migrants who filed lawsuits in the Northern District of Texas, indicating the government may still utilize other legal frameworks to expel them.
The case had been navigating the complex federal courts for several months, finally touching the Supreme Court in the spring. It originated from a group of migrants detained in Texas who challenged their deportation via the Alien Enemies Act.
Earlier, Texas’s district court had ruled against the migrants, stating they lacked sufficient jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court stepped in, suspending the removals temporarily in April, criticizing the Fifth Circuit for dismissing the appeal, and returning the matter for additional consideration.
Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that the government’s notification to the migrants regarding their deportation, which originally came just 24 hours before, was inadequate. Following this, the administration provided updated notices allowing a week’s advance notice in deportation cases, which the Fifth Circuit claimed was likely sufficient for due process requirements but still referred back to the district court for more examination.
This ruling was crafted by Judge Leslie Southwick, appointed by George W. Bush. Joining him was Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, nominated by President Biden, who agreed that no “invasion” or “predatory incursion” existed but felt that a week’s notice might not suffice.
On the other hand, Judge Andrew Oldham, appointed by Trump during his first term, presented a dissent. He pointed out that throughout 227 years, presidents from all political backgrounds have wielded considerable authority under the Alien Enemies Act, arguing that previous administrations have never faced judicial scrutiny over it. Oldham suggested that this pattern doesn’t apply for President Trump.
