In a landmark ruling, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked President Donald Trump’s use of the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The decision, delivered on September 2, 2025, by a divided appellate panel, marks a pivotal check on presidential authority amid a period of aggressive executive action under the Trump administration. According to CNN, the court’s 2-1 decision found that the administration’s attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) did not meet the legal requirements for such sweeping powers.
The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, is a relic from an era of early American anxieties about foreign threats. The law allows the government to detain and deport citizens of enemy nations during times of war or when facing an “invasion or predatory incursion.” The last time it was wielded so broadly was during World War II, to justify the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans—a chapter now widely condemned. Yet, in March 2025, President Trump invoked the AEA, claiming that members of TdA constituted an organized force mounting a “predatory incursion” into the United States. Hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants were rounded up and deported, many sent to a prison in El Salvador. The administration’s justification? Allegations of gang affiliation, sometimes based on nothing more than tattoos.
Subsequent investigations, as reported by FindLaw, revealed that the majority of those deported had no criminal records and were not in the US illegally. Many had simply been swept up because of their appearance or unsubstantiated claims of gang membership. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quickly filed an emergency petition to the Supreme Court in April 2025, seeking to halt further removals under the AEA and to restore due process for those facing deportation. The Supreme Court granted a narrow emergency order, requiring that individuals threatened with deportation under the AEA be given an opportunity to contest their removal—but it did not allow those already deported to plead their cases for return. Those individuals were later sent back to Venezuela in a prisoner exchange.
After the Supreme Court’s emergency order, the case was remanded to the 5th Circuit to determine two crucial issues: whether the legal standards for a preliminary injunction to block the removals had been met, and whether the government’s notice to those facing deportation satisfied constitutional due process. The panel’s majority, led by Judge Leslie Southwick, ruled against the Trump administration. "TdA was not the kind of organized force or engaged in the kind of actions necessary to constitute an invasion or predatory incursion," Southwick wrote, as cited by POLITICO. The majority further explained that the Venezuelan nationals in question were not an "armed, organized force or forces" and that their immigration did not amount to a military-style invasion over US borders.
The court’s decision was also notable for the way it addressed the boundaries of presidential power. Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, penned a lengthy 131-page dissent, arguing that it was not the judiciary’s role to question the President’s determination of when an invasion occurs. He cited the 1948 Supreme Court case Ludeke v. Watkins and the 1827 decision Martin v. Mott to support his position that the courts should defer to the executive branch in such matters. "The majority treats President Trump as if he were some run-of-the-mill plaintiff in a breach-of-contract case instead of the President of the United States," Oldham wrote. But the majority disagreed, noting that nothing in Ludeke barred judicial review of the AEA and that the courts had, in fact, interpreted the law in several past cases, most recently in 1952’s Jaegeler v. Carusi.
Asian American advocacy groups, who have long opposed the expansion of wartime powers to target immigrant communities, welcomed the ruling. "We applaud the court’s decision to block the President’s abusive invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, which is rooted in outright lies around ‘migrant invasions,’" Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) said in a statement published by AsAmNews. "The administration has tried to use this wartime law to justify the targeting of immigrant communities nationwide in the name of national security, and we are pleased to see the court acknowledge the baselessness of this misuse of power." However, the group criticized the court for upholding a seven-day notice period for detainees to challenge their deportation orders, arguing that it "falls short of the Constitution’s guarantees."
The Trump administration’s aggressive use of executive power and national emergency declarations has become a hallmark of its second term. According to FindLaw, eight national emergencies have been declared so far, with more reportedly on the way. The administration’s argument that Venezuela was orchestrating an invasion through TdA was ultimately rejected by the courts, but the episode has ignited fierce debate over the appropriate limits of presidential authority during perceived crises. The ruling is the first time an appellate court has rebuffed President Trump’s use of the AEA to deport immigrants without due process, and legal experts predict that the issue is far from settled.
Further government action is almost certain. The administration can request an en banc hearing before the full 5th Circuit or petition the Supreme Court for review. Until a final resolution, the protections for Venezuelan immigrants affected by the ruling will remain in place. In the meantime, the case has become a flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over immigration policy and the balance of powers between the branches of government.
This legal battle also highlights the human cost of broad executive actions. The individuals deported under the AEA included many who were neither criminals nor undocumented, but who found themselves caught in the crosshairs of a policy aimed at demonstrating toughness on immigration. Some were targeted simply for having tattoos—a stark reminder of how easily civil liberties can be trampled in the name of national security.
As the dust settles, the 5th Circuit’s decision stands as a significant, if temporary, victory for due process and judicial oversight. It sends a clear message that even in times of heightened security concerns, the President’s powers are not without limit, and that the courts remain a crucial check on executive overreach. With further legal maneuvering expected, all eyes will turn to the Supreme Court to see whether this precedent will hold or be swept aside in the next round of America’s ongoing debate over immigration, executive authority, and the meaning of justice.
