WASHINGTON — A federal judge, appointed by former President Donald Trump, issued a significant ruling on Thursday regarding the administration's attempt to utilize the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelans allegedly connected to the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., serving in the Southern District of Texas, articulated in his opinion that while he respects the executive branch's authority to detain and remove aliens involved in criminal activities, the specific application of the Alien Enemies Act in this case raises critical legal questions.
In his detailed ruling, Judge Rodriguez pointed out that the Trump administration could continue to leverage the Immigration and Nationality Act for deportation proceedings. However, the crux of the lawsuit revolved around whether the president could appropriately invoke the Alien Enemies Act to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals associated with Tren de Aragua. Rodriguez emphasized that historical context indicates the President's use of the AEA via proclamation exceeded the legal boundaries of the statute and contradicted its ordinary meaning.
The legal battle intensified as the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted deportations under the Alien Enemies Act at a pivotal moment when buses transporting Venezuelan detainees were en route to an airport from a detention center located in the Northern District of Texas. Accounts from detainees revealed alarming information; some were reportedly informed they were being sent to a prison in El Salvador, while others believed they were being deported back to Venezuela.
Historically, the Alien Enemies Act had only been invoked during major conflicts such as the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. In a proclamation issued on March 15, Trump labeled Tren de Aragua as a designated terrorist organization, claiming it posed an ongoing threat of invasion or predatory incursion against the United States. However, Judge Rodriguez remarked that the administration's characterization of “invasion” does not align with its historical usage, typically associated with military actions or warfare.
According to the court's findings, an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” must involve an “organized, armed force entering the United States” with the intent to cause destruction to property and human life, but it does not necessarily have to precede an actual war. In a landmark decision, Rodriguez granted a class status petition, noting that the unique circumstances of this case warranted such a remedy, as it involved common legal questions applicable to all Venezuelan aliens in the Southern District of Texas.
Judge Rodriguez's final judgment included a permanent injunction, preventing the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport, transfer, or remove the plaintiffs and other affected individuals within the designated class. He clarified, however, that the administration retains the right to proceed with removal actions based on the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the plaintiffs, highlighted the significance of this ruling. Gelernt noted that this marked the first instance in which a federal judge issued a summary judgment on whether the Trump administration could invoke the Alien Enemies Act during peacetime. “The Court correctly held that the President lacks authority to simply declare there’s been an invasion of the United States and then invoke an 18th-century wartime authority during peacetime,” Gelernt stated, asserting that Congress never intended for this law to be applied in such a manner.
