In a landmark decision that could reshape the landscape of U.S. immigration law, a federal appeals court on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration unlawfully invoked the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliation. The decision, handed down by a divided panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, blocks the use of the AEA in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and sets the stage for a likely showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.
This ruling comes after months of legal wrangling over the Trump administration’s efforts to use the AEA—a law dating back to 1798 and previously only used during declared wars—to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. According to CNN, the president had not relied on this law since mid-March 2025, when the first wave of lawsuits challenged its application in peacetime immigration cases. The court’s 2-1 decision concluded that the administration’s use of wartime powers in this context was an overreach, requiring a different legal approach more appropriate to modern immigration proceedings.
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Leslie Southwick and joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, found that the Trump administration’s allegations of an “attack-like incursion” by Tren de Aragua did not meet the historical threshold for invoking the AEA. The judges wrote, “A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States.” This distinction, they argued, was critical to maintaining the balance between executive power and judicial oversight, especially given the peacetime context of the current migration flows.
The court’s decision bars further deportations under the AEA from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, effectively halting one of the Trump administration’s most controversial immigration initiatives. As reported by The Associated Press, the panel agreed with immigrant rights lawyers and lower court judges who contended that the AEA was never intended for use against criminal gangs like Tren de Aragua, but rather for enemies of the state during wartime. The law had only been used three times before in U.S. history: during the War of 1812 and the two World Wars.
Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), welcomed the ruling, stating, “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.”
Not everyone on the panel agreed. Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, issued a lengthy dissent, arguing that the majority was overstepping its bounds and second-guessing the president’s authority in matters of foreign affairs and national security. “The majority’s approach to this case is not only unprecedented—it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent,” Oldham wrote, emphasizing that traditionally, courts have granted the president significant deference in these areas. Nonetheless, the majority’s stance prevailed, reflecting a growing judicial skepticism toward the expansion of executive power in immigration enforcement.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications. As noted by The Washington Post, the case is now poised for further appeals, either to the full Fifth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. The high court has already intervened twice in the dispute: first, in April 2025, affirming that those targeted under the AEA must be given a reasonable chance to argue their case before judges; and again in May 2025, issuing a late-night order halting rapid deportations until the Fifth Circuit could weigh in on the broader legal issues.
Beyond the courtroom drama, the real-world consequences for the migrants involved have been significant. The Trump administration deported individuals designated as Tren de Aragua members to a notorious prison in El Salvador, arguing that U.S. courts could not intervene once the deportations were complete. However, in a deal announced in July 2025, more than 250 of these deported migrants were returned to Venezuela, highlighting the international and humanitarian complexities at play.
The controversy over the AEA’s use is just one part of a broader debate about the limits of presidential authority in immigration matters. The Fifth Circuit’s decision comes amid other related legal developments, including a federal judge blocking the administration’s efforts to expedite deportations of migrants inside the United States, citing due process violations under the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, one of the accused, have requested that a federal judge prevent Trump administration officials from making public statements that could bias his human trafficking trial and jeopardize his right to a fair trial.
Meanwhile, U.S. law enforcement continues to grapple with the criminal activities linked to Tren de Aragua. According to CNN, the U.S. recently struck a drug-smuggling vessel from Venezuela in the Caribbean Sea, targeting narcotics trafficking associated with the cartel. No U.S. casualties were reported in the operation, but the incident underscores the ongoing security concerns that have fueled the administration’s hardline stance.
Despite these challenges, the Fifth Circuit panel did grant the administration one legal victory, finding that the procedures used to advise detainees under the AEA of their legal rights were appropriate. Still, the broader thrust of the ruling was a clear rebuke of the administration’s efforts to bypass traditional legal safeguards in the name of national security.
As the legal battle moves toward the Supreme Court, both supporters and critics of the administration’s policies are bracing for a decision that could redefine the boundaries of executive power in immigration enforcement. For now, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling stands as a testament to the judiciary’s willingness to check presidential authority—even when national security is invoked as justification.
The coming months promise further legal twists, public debate, and, quite possibly, a Supreme Court decision that will reverberate through the nation’s immigration system for years to come.
