Federal judge rules against Trump administration in Alien Enemies Act case
On May 2, a federal judge in Texas determined that the Trump administration is improperly relying on a founding-era law in order to deport Venezuelan nationals living in the United States suspected of gang-related activities.
The case involves a dispute over Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport alleged gang members. In his 36-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. held that the use of the act in this way was impermissible: “The historical record renders clear that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms,” Rodriguez said. “As a result, the Court concludes that as a matter of law, the Executive Branch cannot rely on the AEA, based on the Proclamation, to detain the Named Petitioners and the certified class, or to remove them from the country.”
The dispute began when, on Feb. 20, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang as a foreign terrorist organization. Then on March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation ordering the deportation of “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” The petitioners in the case, Venezuelan nationals who were apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and sent to the El Valle Detention Center in Raymondville, Texas, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the March 15 proclamation.
On April 7, 2025, a divided Supreme Court sent the high-profile case to Texas from Washington, D.C. The Court cited the writ of habeas corpus as requiring hearings for the five men scheduled for deportation in a federal court in Texas. The writ, as stated in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, requires law enforcement authorities to produce a prisoner they are holding in court, and to justify the prisoner's continued confinement. However, the Court held that the proper venue for the case was Texas, where they were being held, and not D.C.
The Decision from Judge Rodriguez
Judge Rodriguez, a district court judge from the Southern District of Texas, first ruled that the petitioners in the current case had the right to appear in his court. “Although they do not seek release from detention, individuals can utilize a habeas action to prevent their unlawful removal,” he determined, citing the Supreme Court precedent in Ex parte Milligan. Rodriguez also said his court was not considering a political question, despite the objections of the Trump administration.
Rodriguez then held that the Trump administration’s use of the AEA failed several statutory tests. To determine the meaning of critical terms in the AEA, he reviewed “numerous historical records using ‘invasion,’ ‘predatory incursion,’ and ‘incursion’ for the period from 1780 through 1820.” Rodriguez concluded the president’s executive order exceeded the powers granted to him under the AEA, based on the judge’s interpretation of the words “invasion” or “predatory incursion” for purposes of the AEA “based on the plain, ordinary meaning of those terms in the late 1790s.”
“For these reasons, the Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” Rodriguez wrote.
The judge therefore ruled the petitioners had a right to a writ of habeas corpus, and he issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the government from employing the executive order and the AEA against them. The judge also agreed to class certification for all would-be deportees in the Southern District of Texas
About the Alien Enemies Act
The Alien Enemies Act was one of several controversial measures taken by the federal government in the context of the 1798 Quasi War with France. The Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today, and it deals with the status of aliens in the United States during a war. It goes into effect “whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government.” (Congress has the exclusive ability to declare a state of war under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, per the Declare War Clause.)
Under the act, the president can publicly declare that “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government’ may be detained, relocated, or removed from the United States as alien enemies.” After such proclamation, the Act specifies that “it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction” to apprehend aliens for court appearances. The Alien Enemies Act has been used during three prior conflicts: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Whether it can be used outside of a declared war, or against parties other than a nation or foreign government, has been a matter of recent debate since then.
For now, the Trump administration must decide if it will proceed with the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, an act that also could lead to the Supreme Court considering appeals from the Fifth Circuit’s rulings at some point.
Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.