Judge bars deportations of Venezuelans from South Texas under the Alien
Enemies Act
[May 02, 2025]
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI
A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from
deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime
law and said President Donald Trump's invocation of it was “unlawful.”
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to
rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people who, the
Republican administration claims, are gang members invading the United
States. Rodriguez said he wouldn't interfere with the government's right
to deport people in the country illegally through other means, but it
could not rely on the 227-year-old law to do so.
“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch
can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal
activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, who was nominated by
Trump in 2018. But, the judge said, "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.”
In March, Trump issued a proclamation claiming that the Venezuelan gang
Tren de Aragua was invading the U.S. He said he had special powers to
deport immigrants, identified by his administration as gang members,
without the usual court proceedings.
"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.
In an interview on Fox News, Vice President JD Vance said the
administration will be “aggressively appealing” the ruling and others
that hem in the president's deportation power.
“The judge doesn’t make that determination, whether the Alien Enemies
Act can be deployed,” Vance said. “I think the president of the United
States is the one who determines whether this country is being invaded.”
The chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Rep. Adriano Espaillat,
D-N.Y., said in a statement the judge had made clear “what we all knew
to be true: The Trump administration illegally used the Alien Enemies
Act to deport people without due process.”
The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times before in U.S.
history, most recently during World War II, when it was cited to intern
Japanese-Americans.
The proclamation triggered a flurry of litigation as the administration
tried to ship migrants it claimed were gang members to a notorious
prison in El Salvador.
Rodriguez’s ruling is significant because it is the first formal
permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and
contends the president is misusing the law. "Congress never meant for
this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer
who argued the case, in response to the ruling.
Rodriguez agreed, noting that the provision has only been used during
the two World Wars and the War of 1812. Trump claimed Tren de Aragua was
acting at the behest of the Venezuelan government, but Rodriguez found
that the activities the administration accused it of did not amount to
an invasion or “predatory incursion,” as the statute requires.
[to top of second column]
|
The El Valle Detention Center in Raymondville, Texas is pictured,
Thursday, May 1, 2025, after a federal judge in the district barred
the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans at the south
Texas detention center under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century
wartime law. (AP Photo/Valerie Gonzalez)
“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests
that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals
entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer
the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,”
Rodriguez wrote. “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read
as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’
for purposes of the AEA.”
If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New
Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That is among the
nation’s most conservative appeals courts and it also has ruled
against what it saw as overreach on immigration matters by both the
Obama and Biden administrations. In those cases, Democratic
administrations had sought to make it easier for immigrants to
remain in the U.S.
The administration, as it has in other cases challenging its
expansive view of presidential power, could turn to appellate
courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in the form of an
emergency motion for a stay pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court already has weighed in once on the issue of
deportations under the AEA. The justices held that migrants alleged
to be gang members must be given “reasonable time” to contest their
removal from the country. The court has not specified the length of
time.
It’s possible that the losing side in the 5th Circuit would file an
emergency appeal with the justices that also would ask them to
short-circuit lower court action in favor of a definitive ruling
from the nation’s highest court. Such a decision likely would be
months away, at least.
The Texas case is just one piece of a tangle of litigation sparked
by Trump's proclamation.
The ACLU initially filed suit in the nation's capital to block
deportations. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a
temporary hold on removals and ordered the administration turn
around planes that had left with detainees headed to El Salvador, a
directive that was apparently ignored. Later, the Supreme Court
weighed in.
The justices stepped in again late last month with an unusual
postmidnight order halting deportations from North Texas, where the
ACLU contended the administration was preparing for another round of
flights to El Salvador.
___
Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Lindsay
Whitehurst and Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
