A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration cannot speed the deportations of migrants accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua using an 18th-century wartime law. The decision, issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, reflects a growing legal challenge to the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement. In a 2-1 ruling, the court rejected the administration’s argument that the Alien Enemies Act could be applied to modern immigration cases involving gangs, emphasizing that the law was never meant for such enforcement. This decision comes amid an ongoing legal battle over the use of the wartime statute during peacetime, with critics arguing that it allows the administration to bypass normal judicial oversight in its immigration policies.
The court’s ruling was based on the premise that the Alien Enemies Act, which was created in 1798 during the War of 1, was not intended to address modern gang-related immigration issues. Immigrant rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, had argued that the administration’s approach violates constitutional protections and undermines the rule of law. The ruling marks a significant legal development in the broader debate over government authority in immigration matters, with implications for future cases involving similar allegations. The decision could lead to further appeals, with the U.S. Supreme Court expected to weigh in on the matter.
The administration had previously cited the gang’s alleged connections to Venezuela’s government and its threat to U.S. national security as justification for using the Alien Enemies Act. Officials argued that the law allows for the deportation of suspected gang members to countries where U.S. courts cannot legally intervene. However, the court found that these claims did not demonstrate the level of national conflict that Congress intended when enacting the statute. The ruling highlights the tension between executive authority and judicial oversight in immigration policy, with critics arguing that the decision reaffirms the importance of legal checks on government power.