Federal Judge Permanently Blocks Trump’s Deportation Strategy

A federal court in Texas has dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration by permanently prohibiting the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants.
The judge ruled that the measure lacked legal foundation and violated rule of law principles.
In a 56-page decision issued Monday, Judge David Briones declared the presidential decree “hereby declared unlawful,” according to Law & Crime, stating that the executive order’s implementation violated the Alien Enemies Act’s requirements.
The court ruled that “under the AEA, a president cannot unilaterally define what constitutes an invasion […] and summarily remove them,” Law & Crime reported.
Last March, Donald Trump became the first president since World War II to invoke this 18th-century law, which permits immediate expulsion of nationals from countries deemed “hostile” during wartime or attacks against the United States. He deployed this authority against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, accused of conducting an “invasion” of American territory.
The administration justified this activation by characterizing the criminal organization as a “hybrid criminal state,” according to Law & Crime. However, the court rejected this expansive interpretation, with the tribunal noting that “this Court need not look beyond the four corners of [the president’s Proclamation] to find its severe deficiencies in comporting with the AEA,” Law & Crime reported.
Judge Briones specified that the terms “invasion” and “predatory incursion,” as they appear in the statute, refer to military actions aimed at territorial control. The activities attributed to the Venezuelan gang do not meet this threshold, he determined, as they “require a militarized effort against, and militarized intrusion into, the territory of the United States with the specific purpose of conquering or obtaining control over territory.”
The judge also refused to broaden interpretation of these terms based on modern warfare realities, ruling that such an approach would strip the law of its coherence.
The court stated it “declines to stretch the AEA’s meaning so broadly that mass migration or criminal activities by some members of a particular nationality could qualify as an ‘invasion,’” Law & Crime reported.
This ruling follows a broader pattern: several federal courts in states including Colorado, New York, California, Massachusetts, and Georgia have already issued similar injunctions against using this law for deportations, Law & Crime reported. The judge referenced the opinion of Judge Fernando Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, who also concluded in April that the measure was illegal.
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s immigrants’ rights project and lead attorney in this case, praised the decision. According to him, the court properly recognized that the Alien Enemies Act constitutes a wartime measure that cannot be used during peacetime, particularly without appropriate legal procedures.
The definitive invalidation of this strategy by federal courts serves as a warning against the misuse of emergency powers.
By placing the Alien Enemies Act within its original historical and legal context—that of declared war and conventional armed conflicts—Judge Briones emphasized that law cannot be manipulated to justify radical measures for political purposes.
The government can no longer use this provision to summarily expel foreign nationals without thorough review and compliance with legal safeguards.
The administration will likely appeal this decision, but for now the Alien Enemies Act cannot be applied in this context.