A federal appeals court has slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s bold move to fast-track deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members using a dusty 1798 law.
Fox News reported that the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday, declared the Alien Enemies Act unfit for tackling modern gang issues. This decision has sparked a firestorm of debate over immigration policy and executive power.
The court’s ruling blocks the Trump administration from deporting migrants accused of ties to Tren de Aragua in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It sided with immigrant rights lawyers who argued the wartime statute was never meant for peacetime gang crackdowns.
The administration’s attempt to tie the gang to Venezuela’s government fell flat, lacking evidence of an “invasion” to justify such drastic measures.
The Alien Enemies Act, dusted off by Trump’s team, has been used only three times in U.S. history—during the War of 1812 and both World Wars.
Each instance involved declared wars, not criminal organizations. The court’s majority opinion, penned by Judges Leslie Southwick and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, called out the administration for stretching the law beyond its historical bounds.
“A country encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force,” Southwick and Ramirez wrote.
Their words dismantle the administration’s narrative that Tren de Aragua’s activities constitute a national security crisis. This judicial slap-down underscores the need for precise, not overreaching, immigration enforcement.
The Trump administration didn’t walk away empty-handed, though. The court upheld the procedures used to inform detainees of their rights under the Alien Enemies Act, handing the administration a minor legal win. Still, this feels like a consolation prize when the main goal—swift deportations—has been derailed.
Earlier this year, the administration deported alleged Tren de Aragua members to a massive prison in El Salvador, beyond the reach of U.S. courts.
On March 16, 2025, guards at CECOT in Tecoluca, El Salvador, were seen escorting inmates linked to criminal groups. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem toured the facility ten days later, signaling strong U.S.-El Salvador cooperation.
The administration’s strategy involved sending alleged gang members to CECOT, a mega-prison designed to hold hardened criminals. This move raised eyebrows, as it effectively sidelined U.S. judicial oversight. Immigrant rights groups cried foul, arguing it was a deliberate end-run around due process.
In July 2025, over 250 deported migrants were sent back to Venezuela under a separate agreement. This deal showed the administration’s determination to tackle Tren de Aragua, but the appeals court ruling now throws a wrench into those plans. The court’s preliminary injunction hinges on the lack of evidence showing an “invasion or predatory incursion.”
Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union didn’t hold back, cheering the ruling as a check on executive overreach. “The Trump administration’s use of a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court,” he said. His victory lap, while predictable, ignores the real dangers posed by organized crime crossing borders.
Gelernt doubled down, calling the decision “critically important” for curbing unchecked emergency declarations. His rhetoric paints a picture of a rogue administration, but let’s be real: border security isn’t a game of checkers. The court’s ruling, while legally sound, might hamstring efforts to keep communities safe from gang violence.
The dissenting voice, U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, wasn’t buying the majority’s logic. “The majority’s approach to this case is not only unprecedented—it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent,” he wrote. Oldham’s frustration highlights a deeper tension: balancing legal tradition with modern threats.
The Trump administration argued Tren de Aragua’s ties to Venezuela’s government justified the wartime law’s use. They claimed the gang’s activities posed a clear danger to American safety. The court, however, saw no evidence linking the gang to state-sponsored aggression, sinking the administration’s case.
This ruling doesn’t just clip Trump’s wings—it sets a precedent that could limit future administrations. The Alien Enemies Act, a relic of a bygone era, was never meant to tackle today’s complex immigration challenges. Yet, dismissing it outright risks ignoring the real-world impact of gangs like Tren de Aragua.
Conservatives will likely see this as another example of judicial overreach, tying the hands of an administration trying to protect Americans.
The court’s focus on historical context, while principled, feels disconnected from the urgency of border security. Meanwhile, progressive groups will hail this as a win for due process, even if it means tougher enforcement takes a backseat.
