Court Blocks Trump's Use of Alien Enemies Act for Deportations

Washington, Sep 3 (AP) - On Tuesday, a federal appeals court panel delivered a significant ruling that President Donald Trump could not deploy an 18th-century wartime statute to hasten the deportation of individuals accused by his administration of belonging to a Venezuelan gang. This marks a notable setback for a key administration initiative, which seems poised for a final judgment by the US Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, recognized for its conservative leanings, rendered a 2-1 decision. The panel sided with immigrant rights advocates and lower court judges, who contended that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was not envisioned for use against gangs such as Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan group President Trump aimed to target in his March declaration.

Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, who argued the case, remarked, “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.” The administration had deported those labeled as Tren de Aragua members to an infamous prison in El Salvador, asserting American courts lacked jurisdiction to order their release.

In a deal publicized in July, more than 250 deported migrants were repatriated to Venezuela.

The Alien Enemies Act has historically been invoked only three times, each during a formally declared war: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The Trump administration's stance that courts should not challenge the president's assessment linking Tren de Aragua to Venezuela’s government and portraying it as a threat to US safety, thereby justifying the statute’s application, was ultimately unpersuasive.

The ruling opens the pathway for an appeal to either the full 5th Circuit or directly to the US Supreme Court, which is expected to provide a definitive legal interpretation on this matter. (AP)

(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)