On Thursday, a federal judge made a significant ruling that permanently bars the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act—a law dating back to 1798—to deport Venezuelans identified as criminals. Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. of the Southern District of Texas stated that the White House’s actions in applying this statute were illegal, highlighting a philosophical rejection of the administration’s attempts to utilize this historical law within a modern immigration framework. This ruling is particularly notable as it represents one of the most extensive legal challenges to the administration’s deportation actions under the law.
Judge Rodriguez’s 36-page ruling emphasized that the Alien Enemies Act is traditionally intended for use against individuals from hostile nations during declared wars. The Supreme Court has mandated that Venezuelans facing expulsion under Trump’s proclamation must have opportunities to contest their removals. However, Judge Rodriguez advanced the argument beyond this precedent, asserting that the White House had misapplied the statute, which is only meant to apply in specific wartime scenarios. His ruling applies specifically to Venezuelan immigrants in the Southern District of Texas, although its implications may extend to other related legal cases regarding the administration’s use of the Act.
In rejecting the Justice Department’s claims that he lacked authority to scrutinize the executive branch’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, Judge Rodriguez firmly outlined his role in interpreting the law’s terms. He noted that while the President may hold broad powers, judges still possess the authority to determine the appropriateness of such powers. Although he refrained from challenging the truth of Trump’s assertions about crimes involving Venezuelan street gangs, he did find that the terminology used in the president’s proclamation didn’t align with the Act’s original context.
Specifically, Judge Rodriguez refuted Trump’s argument that the influx of members from the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua should be construed as an “invasion” or a “predatory incursion.” In his ruling, he clarified that these terms, as used historically in the Act, pertained to military attacks, thus invalidating their application in the context used by the administration. This insightful interpretation suggests a restraint on the executive branch’s capacity to leverage such wartime laws in peacetime scenarios, a sentiment reinforced by legal experts like Lee Gelernt of the A.C.L.U.
Judge Rodriguez, a nominee by Trump and an influential figure in Texas’s legal landscape, structured his order to apply to a class of plaintiffs, indicating a broader impact by preventing the government from using the Alien Enemies Act on Venezuelan immigrants in his jurisdiction unless an appeal overturns his decision. This reflects a pivotal moment for the A.C.L.U., which has actively fought against the administration’s deportation tactics under the Act. However, their victories have thus far not included the repatriation of nearly 140 Venezuelans already deported to El Salvador, currently held in inadequate prison conditions.
Further complicating matters, the A.C.L.U. has initiated efforts to compel the return of these individuals, invoking Supreme Court precedents that suggest the administration may be required to facilitate their re-entry. The pressure on the Justice Department is mounting, as they are expected to file objections against these requests shortly, continuing the ongoing legal battle over executive power, immigration policy, and the historical implications of the Alien Enemies Act.
