In a landmark decision that’s already stirring debate across the nation, a divided federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members is unlawful in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The 2-1 ruling, handed down by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals on September 2, 2025, throws a wrench into Trump’s controversial strategy to leverage a centuries-old wartime law for modern immigration enforcement. The case, now poised to reach the Supreme Court, could set a precedent for how presidential powers are interpreted in the context of immigration and national security.
The 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a relic from the earliest years of the republic, was designed to give the president sweeping powers to detain or deport nationals of enemy countries during times of war or invasion. According to CNN, Trump invoked the law earlier this year to target members of the Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that the State Department designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2025. The administration argued that the gang’s alleged activities in the United States amounted to an “invasion” and justified the use of the act’s extraordinary powers.
But the appeals court wasn’t convinced. Writing for the majority, Judge Leslie Southwick, joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, concluded that what the administration described as a “predatory incursion” simply didn’t meet the legal threshold for an invasion or armed attack. “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,” Southwick wrote. “There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces. It is an action that would have been possible when the AEA was written, and the AEA would not have covered it. The AEA does not apply today either.”
For Trump’s critics, the ruling is a victory for due process and the separation of powers. Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union representing Venezuelan detainees in North Texas, told CNN, “The appeals court correctly held that the administration’s unprecedented use of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful because it violates Congress’ intent in passing the law. This is a critical decision upholding the rule of law and reigning in the administration’s attempt to militarize immigration.”
The legal saga began earlier this year when, in a dramatic move, more than 200 alleged members of the Tren de Aragua were placed on military planes and flown to El Salvador. There, they were held in the country’s notorious mega-prison until July, when they were returned to Venezuela in a prisoner exchange for 10 US nationals. According to Effingham Radio, the Trump administration justified these actions by claiming the gang was conducting “irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.”
But as legal challenges mounted, the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act ground to a halt. Since mid-March, no further deportations have been carried out under the law, as courts across the country weighed the legality of the president’s actions. The Dallas Morning News even published an editorial cartoon titled “Deportations block,” capturing the growing sense of legal and political gridlock surrounding the issue.
The 5th Circuit’s decision is the first by an appeals court to scrutinize the use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context. The ruling not only blocks further deportations in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but also sets the stage for a broader Supreme Court review. Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court had weighed in on an emergency basis, pausing Trump’s use of the act for deportations in the Northern District of Texas and directing the lower courts to consider whether migrants were receiving adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.
On this point, the appeals court found that the administration’s policy of providing seven days’ notice before deportation “appears to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive.” However, this part of the ruling was not unanimous. Judge Ramirez, appointed by President Joe Biden, dissented in part, arguing 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. At least twenty-one days’ notice is required,” she wrote.
Not all judges agreed with the majority’s reasoning. Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, issued a sharp dissent, accusing his colleagues of holding the president to an unfairly high standard. “Today the majority holds that President Trump is just an ordinary civil litigant. His declaration of a predatory incursion is not conclusive. Far from it. Rather, President Trump must plead sufficient facts — as if he were some run-of-the-mill plaintiff in a breach-of-contract case — to convince a federal judge that he is entitled to relief,” Oldham wrote. He further argued that courts should give the president greater deference in matters of immigration and national security, echoing longstanding debates over the scope of executive power. “As far as I know, no federal judge has received a single intelligence briefing about TdA and the AEA. So even if the Constitution gave us the power to countermand the political branches’ determinations in this area, we could not possibly do the job with anything more than judicial whim or gut-level instincts based on ill-informed, unbriefed judicial guesswork,” Oldham wrote.
The case now appears destined for the Supreme Court, which could provide a definitive answer on whether the Alien Enemies Act can be used in this way. For now, the 5th Circuit’s decision means that Trump’s attempt to use a wartime law for rapid deportations is on ice in the affected states. The ruling has energized both supporters and opponents of the administration’s immigration policies, with some arguing that the courts are overstepping their bounds, while others see the decision as a necessary check on executive power.
As the legal battle continues, the debate over the Alien Enemies Act has become a flashpoint in the broader struggle over immigration, presidential authority, and the rule of law in America. With the Supreme Court likely to take up the case, the country may soon have an answer to just how far a president can go in the name of national security—and whether laws written in the age of quill pens and powdered wigs still have a place in today’s immigration fights.
