Court Blocks Trump’s Deportation of Venezuelans Under 1798 Law \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s order halting the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The court ruled the deportations cannot proceed until legal challenges are resolved. The decision marks a major legal setback for Trump’s immigration agenda.
Court Blocks Trump’s Deportation of Venezuelans Under 1798 Law: Quick Looks
- Appeals court upholds freeze on Venezuelan migrant deportations
- Trump invoked 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify removals
- Administration labeled Tren de Aragua gang an “invading force”
- Two judges declined to lift injunction; one dissented
- District Judge Boasberg ordered return of deported migrants
- DOJ invoked “state secrets” to withhold deportation details
- ACLU and Democracy Forward filed lawsuit for five migrants
- Deportation law hasn’t been used since World War II
- Judges cite due process concerns and potential wrongful removals
- Trump allies call for impeachment of Judge Boasberg
- Chief Justice Roberts defends judicial independence in response
Deep Look
Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s Attempt to Deport Venezuelan Migrants Using 18th-Century Wartime Law
A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to lift an order halting the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants, marking a significant legal blow to the former president’s immigration strategy. The administration had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law not used since World War II, to justify expedited removals based on national security concerns.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Justice Department’s request to resume deportations immediately, upholding a March 15 injunction issued by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. That order temporarily blocks the government from deporting Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador, where many had allegedly been sent under a presidential proclamation labeling the Tren de Aragua gang an invading force.
The decision comes as tensions rise between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary over the scope of executive power in immigration and national security.
Alien Enemies Act Invoked for the First Time in Decades
President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act—a law passed during the John Adams administration that allows the government to detain or deport noncitizens from hostile nations—was unprecedented in the modern era. The administration claims the law gave them authority to deport migrants affiliated with or suspected of ties to criminal gangs without providing access to hearings.
The ACLU and legal nonprofit Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelan noncitizens detained in Texas, arguing the administration’s actions violated due process and the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Boasberg agreed, stating that the plaintiffs must be given the opportunity to challenge their designation as “enemy aliens.” He ordered that flights carrying deported migrants be turned around, a directive the administration has so far not complied with.
Appeals Court Refuses to Intervene—For Now
Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Patricia Millett both voted to uphold Boasberg’s injunction.
Millett, an Obama appointee, emphasized that the lower court’s order merely preserves the status quo while “weighty and unprecedented legal issues” are resolved. She also warned that allowing the administration to deport the plaintiffs could render the case moot by removing them from the court’s jurisdiction.
“There is neither jurisdiction nor reason for this court to interfere at this very preliminary stage,” she wrote.
Henderson, appointed by George H.W. Bush, added that lifting the injunction could exile the plaintiffs to a country that isn’t even their own, referring to the government’s failure to clarify why Venezuelans were being deported to El Salvador.
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented. He argued the case should be heard in Texas and warned that the injunction threatens diplomatic negotiations involving national security.
Trump Administration Defiant, Invokes State Secrets
Despite the court orders, the Trump administration has not returned the deported migrants. It has invoked “state secrets privilege”, a legal doctrine allowing the government to withhold information on national security grounds. So far, the Justice Department has declined to provide Boasberg or the plaintiffs’ lawyers with additional details about the deportations.
In response, Judge Boasberg has vowed to determine whether the administration violated his court’s order—a move that could have legal consequences if defiance is confirmed.
Political Backlash and Judicial Independence
The decision has sparked political backlash from Trump allies, who have called for Boasberg’s impeachment, accusing him of obstructing national security policy. In a rare and pointed statement, Chief Justice John Roberts defended Boasberg and the judiciary, declaring:
“Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
The broader legal community, including the Committee to Protect Journalists, has also weighed in, warning that misuse of wartime powers poses a danger to civil liberties and the rule of law.
Advocates Celebrate Legal Victory
Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, welcomed the ruling.
“President Trump is bound by the laws of this nation,” she said. “And those laws do not permit him to use wartime powers when the United States is not at war and has not been invaded.”
Perryman described the court’s decision as a critical defense of due process and a check on executive overreach.
Legal Stakes Remain High
The legal fight is far from over. A future hearing will determine whether the Trump administration can continue to use the Alien Enemies Act as a basis for deportation and whether the government’s classification of migrants as “enemy aliens” stands up under judicial scrutiny.
At the heart of the case is a fundamental question: can a centuries-old wartime law be used in peacetime to sidestep immigration courts and fast-track removals?
For now, the courts have said no—at least until the full legal and constitutional implications can be examined.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.