A federal appeals court in Washington upheld a block on the Trump administration’s use of an old wartime statute to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of being violent gang members without hearing. The court ruled that using the Alien Enemies Act to transfer them to a prison in El Salvador without due process violated their rights to judicial review. This decision dealt a setback to the administration’s immigration agenda, but the underlying order is set to expire soon.
In mid-March, a federal judge barred the administration from using the wartime statute to summarily deport Venezuelans accused of belonging to the gang Tren de Aragua. The order, however, allows for detention and deportation after hearings under normal immigration law. Another issue being investigated is whether the Justice Department violated the court order by transferring two planes of Venezuelans to El Salvador after the injunction was issued.
The case has become a point of contention over the administration’s use of a centuries-old law for mass deportations outside of wartime. President Trump and his allies have criticized the judge’s order, calling it an overreach into national security powers. The appellate ruling focused on the legitimacy of the restraining order rather than the broader confrontation between the judiciary and executive branches.
The panel’s majority opinion emphasized due process rights for individuals accused of being gang members and designated as terrorists by the White House. Judge Millett expressed concerns about potential harm from using the wartime act and recommended pausing its application until legal issues were thoroughly evaluated. However, the dissenting judge argued that the case should have been brought in Texas, where the migrants were being held, and raised concerns about possible harm to diplomatic negotiations and national security.
The Alien Enemies Act dates back to 1798 and allows the government to deport foreign citizens during wartime. In this case, the Trump administration claimed that the gang members were acting at the direction of the Venezuelan government to destabilize the United States, but an intelligence assessment contradicted this claim. The court cast doubt on the government’s assertion that the gang’s actions constituted an “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” questioning whether simply leaving Venezuela was enough to justify deportation under the statute.
The appellate court’s decision to uphold the injunction prevents further transfers of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador until the legal issues are resolved. The case highlights the ongoing tensions between the branches of government around immigration policies and the use of old laws for modern enforcement practices. The final resolution of this dispute will likely have broader implications for the administration’s immigration agenda and the balance of powers between the executive and judicial branches.
