In a landmark decision on September 2, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a stinging rebuke to the Trump administration’s hardline immigration tactics, ruling that the use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants was illegal. The 2-1 decision, issued by one of the nation’s most conservative appellate courts, has sent shockwaves through legal and political circles, setting the stage for an eventual showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
At the heart of the case was the Trump administration’s unprecedented invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a law historically reserved for times of war—to justify the rapid removal of hundreds of Venezuelan men. The administration claimed these individuals were members of the notorious Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang, which it described as a transnational criminal organization orchestrating an “invasion or predatory incursion” into the United States.
According to AP, Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority, was unequivocal in her rejection of the administration’s rationale. “We conclude that the findings do not support that an invasion or a predatory incursion has occurred,” Southwick wrote. “We therefore conclude that petitioners are likely to prove that the AEA [Alien Enemies Act] was improperly invoked.” Supporting Southwick’s opinion was Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Biden appointee, while Judge Andrew Oldham, appointed by Trump, filed a lengthy dissent.
The ruling, though limited in jurisdiction to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, is the first appellate decision to address Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context. It comes after several district court judges had already denied the administration’s invasion claims. The decision is expected to serve as a persuasive precedent in other circuits and almost certainly paves the way for Supreme Court review.
Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was both novel and controversial. Before this administration, the law had been invoked only three times in U.S. history—during the War of 1812 and the two world wars, each time against citizens of hostile nations in the context of declared wars. No prior administration had attempted to wield its powers against non-state actors or criminal gangs.
On March 15, 2025, Trump issued an executive order claiming that Tren de Aragua, allegedly controlled by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, was perpetrating an invasion of the U.S. That same day, two planeloads of Venezuelan migrants were flown to El Salvador’s infamous Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT), a maximum-security prison notorious for its harsh conditions and human rights concerns. The administration asserted these men were TdA members, but investigations cited by Democracy Docket and The Guardian revealed that most had no criminal records in the U.S., Venezuela, or El Salvador, nor had they violated U.S. immigration laws.
Lawyers for the deported men, many represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argued that the administration’s actions denied their clients the right to challenge their designation or transfer. The men languished in the Salvadoran prison for months, unable to contest their imprisonment. In July 2025, more than 250 of them were returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap involving the U.S., El Salvador, and Venezuela.
The Trump administration’s legal arguments hinged on the assertion that Tren de Aragua was an organized, armed force acting at the behest of Maduro’s government in a coordinated effort to destabilize the United States. However, a declassified U.S. intelligence memo directly contradicted this, stating there was no evidence of Maduro’s coordination with the gang. Judge Southwick’s majority opinion was clear: “There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces.”
On the same day as the ruling, the U.S. announced it had attacked a boat carrying 11 alleged Tren de Aragua members in international Caribbean waters, killing all on board. Trump labeled them “narcoterrorists,” but the incident did little to bolster the administration’s legal standing.
In April and May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court had already weighed in on related aspects of the Alien Enemies Act cases. The Court ruled that while deportations could proceed, immigrants must be given “reasonable time” to contest their removals and that such challenges should be brought in the federal districts where they were being held. In another decision, the Court blocked a group of deportations in Texas, criticizing the administration for attempting to remove detainees just one day after providing notice. The majority opinion stated, “Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”
After these Supreme Court interventions, the case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit, culminating in this week’s pivotal decision. Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, who argued the case, hailed the outcome: “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.”
Yet, not all were in agreement. Judge Andrew Oldham’s dissent ran over 100 pages, arguing that the courts should not “second-guess the Executive’s determination.” He wrote, “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.” Oldham maintained that matters of national security and foreign affairs are traditionally left to the executive branch, a view that finds support among some legal scholars and policymakers who argue for strong presidential discretion in such matters.
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling did grant the administration one minor victory, upholding the procedures used to advise detainees of their legal rights under the Alien Enemies Act as appropriate. However, the core of the administration’s efforts—to use a centuries-old wartime statute to fast-track mass deportations—was decisively rebuffed.
As the legal battle moves forward, the Trump administration faces a choice: appeal to the full Fifth Circuit or seek direct review from the Supreme Court. Given the high stakes and the divided lower court opinions, most observers expect the nation’s highest court will ultimately decide the fate of this controversial immigration strategy.
The outcome will have profound implications not only for the Venezuelan migrants at the center of the case but also for the scope of presidential power in times of perceived crisis. For now, at least, the courts have drawn a clear line: the extraordinary powers granted by the Alien Enemies Act cannot be stretched to fit the contours of today’s immigration challenges without meeting the strict standards set by history and the Constitution.
