Former President Donald Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport hundreds of immigrants, marking its first use since World War II. The recent deportations targeted alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and occurred over the weekend of March 15-16, 2025, even as federal judges issued orders barring such actions.
Trump’s proclamation on March 15 described members of Tren de Aragua as invading forces, bolstering his rationale for using the sweeping powers granted by this centuries-old wartime law. Under the Alien Enemies Act, the president holds considerable authority to deport noncitizens without the usual judicial processes. This latest action has triggered significant legal controversy, drawing criticism from legal experts and civil rights organizations alike.
Specifically, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg ordered the administration to cease deportations under the Alien Enemies Act just before the planes took off carrying the deportees. Nonetheless, the Trump administration initiated the expulsion process, sending 238 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, where they will face at least one year of imprisonment under dire conditions.
Despite the absence of declared war, Trump has characterized the situation as one of conflict, claiming, “This is a time of war because Biden allowed millions of people, many of them criminals.” Critics argue this is misleading, as the Alien Enemies Act is meant to apply strictly during times of declared war or direct attacks against the United States. The Brennan Center for Justice stated, “The Alien Enemies Act may be used only during declared wars or armed attacks on the United States by foreign governments.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alongside other organizations, has preemptively sued the Trump administration, asserting the legality of the deportations. Their concerns are particularly valid as they contend those targeted had not even been presented with charges or provided the opportunity to defend themselves against accusations of gang affiliation. Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, highlighted this, saying, “The individuals… are already in custody… but the Trump administration is seeking to circumvent the process.”
The Trump administration's actions seem to tread on precarious ground. Legal experts assert there’s no basis for using the Alien Enemies Act without providing migrants any due process, and such overreach could set troubling precedents for civil liberties. Critics have continuously raised alarms over this apparent defiance of judicial authority and due process, potentially marking it as the beginning of Constitutional crises under the current administration.
The tensions escalated when three planes carrying deportees were airborne during the judge's order, yet officials argued they could ignore the ruling since the planes were operating over international waters. This justification has drawn skepticism and criticism, illustrating the administration’s increasingly tenuous legal arguments. The use of such reasoning raises alarms about the potential normalization of bypassing judicial oversight, which could have long-lasting effects on the integrity of the U.S. legal system.
Following the deportations, Judge Boasberg has scheduled another hearing to assess whether the administration acted unlawfully. Observers are closely watching these developments, noting the potential ramifications the outcome may have on future interpretations of executive power concerning immigration laws.
Formerly, the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked only during three historical moments: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Each usage was tightly bound to military conflict. During World War II, for example, it was underpinned as part of the legal justification for the mass internment of Japanese Americans, which remains one of the great injustices of American history. Legal scholars warn of the shadows of this past as the Trump administration draws from this historical precedent without corresponding justification for its current actions.
Mark S. Zaid, specializing in national security law, remarked on social media, “Court order defied,” summing up the growing concern over the executive branch’s apparent disregard for judicial processes. These legal struggles raise questions not only about due process but also about governmental accountability and the fundamental rights of individuals within the U.S. borders, regardless of their immigration status.
US border apprehensions under President Biden had reached record levels, with arrests surpassing 2 million annually during his term. This has led to intensified rhetoric around immigration policy and border enforcement. Trump’s deportations, argued as necessary to protect American citizens from crime, appear to broaden the narrative of immigration as invasion.
Public opinion remains divided, but one thing is clear: the stakes are high, and the legal frameworks governing immigration and presidential powers are more important than ever. The outcome of this case could significantly shape how immigration laws are enforced and which judicial checks on presidential power endure in the long run.
