Trump-Appointed Judge Halts Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act Following SCOTUS Ruling

A U.S. District Judge in Texas has issued a temporary restraining order preventing the federal government from deporting certain Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Invasion Act (AEA) of 1798. The ruling comes after a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the administration’s use of this law to deport individuals without notice or due process. This decision provides temporary protection to three Venezuelan migrants who were previously targeted for deportation under the AEA, raising questions about the legality and fairness of using such an old law to remove individuals from the U.S.

The Controversial Use of the Alien Invasion Act

The Trump administration invoked the AEA, a wartime law dating back to the late 18th century, to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. This gang, primarily operating out of Venezuela, was labeled by the administration as responsible for a “predatory incursion” into the U.S., justifying the removal of any member under the AEA. In a controversial move, President Trump cited the gang’s criminal activities as sufficient grounds for invoking the law, arguing that they posed a threat to national security. However, the AEA was originally intended for wartime situations, and its use in this context has raised significant legal concerns. The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the government was circumventing due process by deporting individuals without any legal notice or the opportunity to challenge their removal in court. A federal judge previously blocked such deportations, but with the U.S. Supreme Court vacating the lower court’s ruling, the risk of summary deportations returned, prompting further legal action.

Judge Rodriguez’s Ruling and the Plaintiffs’ Legal Battle

On Wednesday, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing a temporary restraining order that blocked the government from deporting them under the AEA. This decision was based on the plaintiffs’ claim that their deportation would result in “immediate and irreparable injury,” particularly if they were sent to El Salvador, where they could face serious harm or even permanent separation from the U.S. Judge Rodriguez noted that the government had failed to explain how it would provide proper notice of deportation, despite the Supreme Court ruling that those subject to the AEA must be given due process before removal.

Rodriguez’s order was issued in response to a class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of the three Venezuelan migrants. The lawsuit argues that the plaintiffs and others detained in Texas should not be deported without a formal process. This legal battle continues as the court considers the broader implications of deportations under the AEA.

Legal Precedents and Future Implications

The ruling by Judge Rodriguez follows a similar decision in New York by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who also blocked the administration from using the AEA to deport Venezuelan migrants in his jurisdiction. The decisions underscore a growing legal consensus that any deportations under the AEA must respect the constitutional rights of the individuals involved, particularly their right to due process.

These legal challenges highlight the increasing scrutiny of the Trump administration’s use of the AEA to address national security threats. The case is far from over, and as the legal process continues, the fate of other migrants detained under the AEA remains uncertain. The court’s future rulings could set a precedent for how the U.S. government can handle deportations under wartime powers and the protections afforded to individuals facing removal from the country.