Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Use of 1798 Alien Enemies Act for Mass Deportations

Introduction

A federal judge has temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s unprecedented attempt to use the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations of Venezuelan immigrants.

The dramatic legal confrontation unfolded on Saturday, March 15, 2025, when Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a sweeping order blocking the administration from implementing Trump’s proclamation and even ordered deportation flights already in progress to return to the United States.

Background of the Alien Enemies Act

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 represents one of the oldest federal laws still on the books in the United States. This extraordinary legislation grants presidents the power to order the arrest, detention, and deportation of noncitizens who are 14 years or older and originate from countries allegedly staging an “invasion or predatory incursion” against the United States.

Throughout American history, this law has been invoked only three times, all during periods of declared war: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

During World War II, the act was notoriously used to justify the internment of people of Japanese, German, and Italian descent.

Despite being designed for wartime application, former Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman extended enforcement beyond the conclusion of hostilities – Wilson detaining German and Austro-Hungarian immigrants for two years after World War I ended, and Truman continuing deportations for six years after World War II.

The Supreme Court upheld such extensions in a 1948 ruling, with Justice Felix Frankfurter writing that it was “not for us to question a belief by the President that enemy aliens who were justifiably deemed fit subjects for internment during active hostilities do not lose their potency for mischief” even after fighting has ceased.

Historical Context and Legal Framework

The Alien Enemies Act specifically allows for its implementation during “a declared war” with a foreign nation or government, or when “any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened” against the United States.

Under the law’s provisions, foreign citizens meeting these criteria could “be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies”.

This legal framework establishes a high threshold for invocation – namely, the existence of a state of war or a genuine national security threat posed by a hostile foreign power.

The current controversy centers on whether a criminal organization, even one allegedly backed by a foreign government, meets these stringent statutory requirements.

Trump’s Invocation of the Act

On Saturday, March 15, President Trump issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act specifically against members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which his administration had previously designated as a foreign terrorist organization in February 2025.

The proclamation, which appears to have been signed on Friday, March 14, claimed that Tren de Aragua was “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States” at the direction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

Trump’s Claims About Venezuelan Gang Activity

In his proclamation, Trump portrayed the Venezuelan gang as an extension of a hostile foreign government engaged in an invasion of American territory. “Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organisations, including TdA,”

Trump’s statement read. “The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States”.

The administration claimed that the gang “has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens”.

Trump also asserted that many members of the gang had “illegally infiltrated the United States, engaging in irregular warfare and hostile actions against the country”.

All Venezuelan citizens aged 14 or older determined to be members of the gang, who are present in the U.S. and are not naturalized or lawful permanent residents, would under the proclamation be “liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies”.

The Legal Challenge

Before Trump’s proclamation was officially announced, attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward anticipated the move and filed a federal civil lawsuit in Washington, D.C.. The lawsuit was initially brought on behalf of five Venezuelan men being held in immigration custody in Texas and New York local jails.

Arguments Against Trump’s Use of the Act

The lawsuit argued that the Alien Enemies Act is “a wartime measure that has been used only three times in our Nation’s history: the War of 1812, World War I and World War II”.

The ACLU contended that criminal gang activity does not constitute the type of “invasion” or “predatory incursion” contemplated by the law, which was designed for use during formal conflicts between nations.

The lawsuit further alleged that Trump’s interpretation “contorts the plain language of the Act” by characterizing the arrival of noncitizens from Venezuela as an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” by a “foreign nation or government”.

The plaintiffs expressed concern that under Trump’s proclamation, the government could potentially identify any Venezuelan in the U.S. as a gang member, regardless of facts, and seek to deport them without due process.

Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney leading the case, described Trump’s invocation of the act as “flat out lawless” and later told Reuters: “We are on very dangerous ground when the administration is going to try to use wartime authority, when we’re at peace, for immigration purposes or any other-non military purpose”.

Judge Boasberg’s Ruling

In response to the lawsuit, Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of the District Court for the U.S. District of Columbia initially issued a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelan plaintiffs for 14 days. However, following an emergency hearing Saturday evening, Judge Boasberg dramatically expanded the scope of his order.

The Expanded Temporary Restraining Order

Judge Boasberg broadened his temporary restraining order to include “all noncitizens in U.S. custody” who would be affected by Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. This class-action certification effectively halted the entire operation before it could gain momentum.

In a striking directive that underscored the urgency of the situation, Boasberg also ordered that any deportation flights already in the air with migrants subject to this order should return to the United States. “Given the plaintiffs’ assertions, which the government has not contested, that flights are currently departing or preparing to depart, I do not think I can delay any longer,”

Boasberg stated during the hearing. “Any plane carrying these individuals that is about to take off or is already in flight must return to the United States”.

The judge specified that the temporary restraining order would remain in effect for 14 days “or until further notice from the court,” and scheduled another hearing on the lawsuit’s merits for March 21, 2025. “It is evident that there is irreparable harm, considering these individuals will face deportation,”

Boasberg remarked. “A slight postponement of their removal does not inflict harm on the government”.

Legal Reasoning Behind the Decision

In his ruling, Judge Boasberg found that the Alien Enemies Act does not “provide a basis for the president’s proclamation given that the terms invasion, predatory incursion really relate to hostile acts perpetrated by any nation and commensurate to war”.

This interpretation directly challenges Trump’s characterization of gang activity as equivalent to a foreign invasion.

The judge’s decision implicitly rejects the notion that a criminal organization, even one allegedly backed by a foreign government, can trigger the extraordinary wartime powers granted by the Alien Enemies Act.

His ruling suggests that courts may be reluctant to allow the executive branch to unilaterally expand the definition of “invasion” or “war” to address immigration enforcement challenges.

Reaction and Implications

The Justice Department promptly appealed Judge Boasberg’s ruling, signaling the administration’s determination to pursue this enforcement strategy.

In their appeal, government attorneys argued that the D.C. court lacks jurisdiction since none of the five men in the initial lawsuit are physically located in the district, with four being held in Texas and one in New York.

Government Response and National Security Arguments

In its legal response, the Justice Department raised concerns about the broader implications of judicial intervention in executive national security decisions.

The department warned that allowing courts to block such presidential orders could undermine national security by giving “district courts licence to enjoin virtually any urgent national-security action just upon receipt of a complaint”.

Such interventions, they argued, could potentially extend to drone strikes, intelligence operations, or terrorist captures.

The administration also characterized concerns about the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act as “speculation,” suggesting that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated actual harm from a policy that was still being implemented.

Civil Rights Concerns and Broader Implications

Civil rights groups and Democratic officials have strongly criticized Trump’s attempt to revive the Alien Enemies Act for immigration enforcement.

New York Attorney General Letitia James described the move as “bigoted, dangerous, and profoundly unjust”.

Immigration attorney William Vasquez noted that this represents the first time the act “has been applied against migrants from a country with which the US is not at war”.

Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, framed the judge’s decision as essential for protecting democratic norms: “Yet again, the judicial system is working to protect our democracy.

We are gratified to see the judge’s decision and will work on the next stages to ensure those impacted by this dangerous move to invoke war time powers when the nation is not at war — and has not been invaded – are protected”.

Conclusion

The legal battle over President Trump’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act for expedited deportations represents a significant test of executive authority in immigration enforcement.

Judge Boasberg’s sweeping temporary restraining order has momentarily halted what would have been an unprecedented application of a 227-year-old wartime law to address contemporary immigration challenges.

As this case moves forward to a hearing on its merits scheduled for March 21, it raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of presidential power, the definition of “invasion” in modern contexts, and the balance between national security concerns and due process rights for immigrants.

The outcome could have far-reaching implications for immigration policy, executive authority, and constitutional protections in the United States.

For now, the judicial system has intervened to ensure that any implementation of these extraordinary measures receives proper legal scrutiny before potentially affecting thousands of immigrants.

The clash between executive action and judicial oversight continues to define the contours of American democracy, particularly in the contentious realm of immigration enforcement.