Washington , US
September 4, 2025
A U.S. federal appeals court has delivered a significant legal blow to the Trump administration, ruling against the president’s use of a centuries-old wartime law to rapidly deport Venezuelan migrants. The 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, one of the nation’s most conservative appellate courts, marks a major setback for a key element of the administration’s immigration policy.
The ruling, issued on Tuesday, centers on the president’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The administration argued that the law, which allows a president to arrest and deport non-citizens from “hostile” countries during wartime, could be applied to a Venezuelan gang called Tren de Aragua. The administration contended that the gang’s presence in the U.S. constituted a “predatory incursion” and therefore a basis to use the act to expedite deportations.
However, the three-judge panel rejected this argument, with the majority opinion stating that the situation did not meet the definition of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” as intended by the law’s original drafters. “A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” wrote the judges. This decision effectively grants a preliminary injunction, halting the deportations under the act in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
The ruling has been hailed as a “victory for the rule of law” by immigrant rights lawyers. Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, stated that the court “rightly shut down” the administration’s attempt to use a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration. The decision follows a series of legal challenges that have pushed back against the administration’s use of the act since it was first invoked earlier this year.
The case, which has been making its way through the federal judiciary for months, is expected to be appealed by the Trump administration. The ultimate decision could rest with the Supreme Court, which has previously issued temporary blocks on the deportations and has been a crucial check on the administration’s expansion of presidential power.
While the court granted a legal victory to the administration on a separate point—finding that the procedures used to advise detainees of their legal rights were appropriate—the main ruling against the use of the act for deportations is a significant setback. It underscores the ongoing legal battles over the scope of presidential authority in matters of immigration and national security, and it signals that the courts will continue to scrutinize the administration’s more controversial policies.
The ruling also shines a light on the broader debate over immigration enforcement and the use of broad executive powers. The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked only three times in U.S. history prior to this instance—all during declared wars. The administration’s attempt to use it in this context has been a subject of intense legal and political debate. As the case likely heads to a higher court, the outcome will have lasting implications for the balance of power and the rights of non-citizens within the U.S. legal system.
Headline Points:
* Major Legal Setback: A federal appeals court has ruled against President Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants.
* “No Invasion” Finding: The court found that the presence of a Venezuelan gang in the U.S. did not meet the legal definition of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.”
* Victory for Rule of Law: Immigrant rights lawyers have praised the decision, calling it a necessary check on the use of a wartime statute during peacetime.
* Supreme Court Showdown Looms: The administration is expected to appeal the ruling, likely sending the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
* Executive Power Challenged: The ruling highlights the ongoing legal battle over the extent of the president’s authority in immigration matters.
