Trump faces legal setback as judge blocks deportations under Alien Enemies Act
- A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, citing immediate legal challenges from the ACLU.
- The Trump administration claimed it has the authority to deport members of a Venezuelan gang under the act, which has only been used during wartime.
- This ruling raises significant questions about the legality and implications of the Alien Enemies Act in current circumstances.
On March 15, 2025, in the United States, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport five Venezuelan men in immigration custody. This decision came shortly after President Donald Trump invoked the law, asserting that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua warranted such actions under a claim of invasion. The lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward challenged the legality of Trump's move, emphasizing that the Alien Enemies Act has traditionally been used during wartime and requires a formal declaration of war. The ruling prevents deportations for at least 14 days, highlighting ongoing litigation surrounding Trump's controversial proclamation. Judge Boasberg indicated that immediate action was necessary, citing active deportations that were occurring at that time. He emphasized the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs if the deportations proceeded. The Justice Department responded by appealing the ruling, arguing that a district court should not interfere with executive actions before they are fully implemented. The situation sparked widespread legal and public debate about the application of the Alien Enemies Act, a law meant for wartime use, raising questions about its relevance and legality during peacetime. Following the ruling, the administration characterized the judge's order as unprecedented and harmful to national security efforts. Immigration advocates criticized the president's use of the law as draconian and highlighted the risks posed to noncitizens amid broad interpretations of the act. The legal proceedings and subsequent decisions underscore the tension between the executive branch's authority and judicial oversight in immigration matters, especially under contentious circumstances like claims of an invasion by non-state actors. Overall, the litigation surrounding Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act illustrates the complexities of U.S. immigration law and the challenges of balancing national security concerns with civil liberties. As the case develops, it could establish precedents affecting future executive actions and the rights of individuals targeted by sweeping immigration policies.