In a landmark decision on September 2, 2025, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to use the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport Venezuelan migrants accused of gang membership, marking a significant setback for the administration’s hardline immigration agenda. The ruling, issued by a divided three-judge panel, concluded that the circumstances cited by the Trump administration—namely, the influx of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members—did not meet the legal standard of an "invasion or predatory incursion" required by the 1798 statute.
The controversy centers on Trump’s March 2025 proclamation, which invoked the Alien Enemies Act to fast-track the removal of Venezuelans suspected of being part of the notorious Tren de Aragua gang. The administration argued that the gang’s alleged activities and "mass illegal migration" constituted a sufficient threat to national security to justify using a law originally intended for wartime emergencies. According to Axios, the president framed the situation as necessitating extraordinary measures: "It was necessary to invoke the act in cases concerning Venezuelans suspected of being members of Tren de Aragua and other gangs due to mass illegal migration."
But the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, penned by Judge Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, and joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Biden appointee, found otherwise. The court stated unequivocally, "There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces." In its majority opinion, the panel reasoned that a country encouraging its citizens to enter the U.S. illegally "is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm" the United States.
Judge Southwick’s opinion further emphasized the historical context of the Alien Enemies Act, which has only been invoked three times in U.S. history—during the War of 1812 and the two World Wars. The court concluded that Trump’s invocation of the act did not align with Congress’s original intent, which was to give the president special powers in the context of declared wars or actual invasions. "The findings do not support that an invasion or a predatory incursion has occurred. We therefore conclude that petitioners are likely to prove that the AEA was improperly invoked," Southwick wrote, as reported by CNN.
The ruling is particularly notable because it represents the first time a federal appeals court has directly ruled on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context. Legal experts and advocates believe the decision is likely to set the stage for a Supreme Court showdown, with the justices potentially weighing in on the limits of presidential authority in immigration matters. As NPR noted, the Fifth Circuit’s decision "is destined for a final showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court."
The case originated in the Northern District of Texas, where detained migrants sued to block their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court had temporarily paused the deportations and remanded the case to the appellate court, instructing it to examine whether the migrants were receiving adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The government subsequently updated its procedures, providing seven days’ notice to migrants before deportation. The Fifth Circuit found that this likely satisfied due process requirements, though it sent the issue back to the district court for further review.
However, not all the judges agreed on this point. Judge Ramirez, while concurring with the majority that there was no invasion or predatory incursion, argued that "seven days’ notice is not reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to afford detainees, especially those who are unrepresented, due process under the AEA." She advocated for at least twenty-one days’ notice, highlighting the ongoing debate over what constitutes fair legal process for migrants facing deportation.
Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, issued a sharp dissent. He argued that the president’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act had never before been questioned by the courts in its 227-year history, regardless of political party. "For 227 years, every President of every political party has enjoyed the same broad powers to repel threats to our Nation under the Alien Enemies Act ('AEA'). And from the dawn of our Nation until President Trump took office a second time, courts have never second-guessed the President's invocation of that Act. Not once," Oldham wrote in his dissent, according to CBS News. He maintained that only the president is empowered to determine if the conditions for invoking the Act are met and criticized his colleagues for "second-guessing Trump's conduct of foreign affairs, a realm where courts usually give the president great deference."
The Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was not without precedent, but its application to gang-related immigration during peacetime marked a dramatic expansion of executive authority. The administration deported hundreds of alleged Tren de Aragua members earlier in 2025, with some detainees sent to a supermax prison in El Salvador and others later returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap in July. The legal strategy drew widespread criticism from immigrant rights advocates, who argued that it subjected thousands to an "unfair, arbitrary, and error-prone system," as Anand Balakrishnan, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, told Axios.
Lee Gelernt, who represented the Venezuelan detainees for the ACLU, praised the decision, saying, "The Trump administration's use of a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court. This is a critically important decision reining in the administration's view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts."
The Fifth Circuit’s decision grants a preliminary injunction, blocking the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—at least for now. However, the government can still pursue deportations under other legal authorities, and the ultimate fate of the policy may rest with the Supreme Court.
The majority’s ruling underscores a broader debate over the boundaries of executive power, the role of the judiciary in checking that power, and the rights of non-citizens facing removal from the United States. The court’s message was clear: even in the face of complex migration challenges, the government must respect due process and the limits set by both history and the law.
As the legal battle continues, the eyes of the nation—and the world—will be on the Supreme Court, which may soon decide whether President Trump’s interpretation of wartime powers will stand or fall.
