Dark Mode
A federal appeals court has significantly curtailed former President Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement strategy by ruling that his administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan nationals was unlawful under current circumstances. The ruling delivers a decisive rebuke to the application of an antiquated wartime statute during peacetime and underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding due process.
Background: Wartime Law in a Peacetime Setting
The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, allows the President to detain or deport non‑citizens from a nation with which the United States is at war. Historically, it has only been invoked during declared wars—namely, the War of 1812 and both World Wars.
In March 2025, the Trump administration branded members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a national security threat akin to a military “invasion” and invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals without standard legal proceedings. The administration executed deportations to El Salvador, where many individuals were sent to the controversial Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) without proper adjudication, igniting widespread legal and human rights concerns.
Legal Challenges and Progression
Multiple federal courts issued injunctions and temporary restraining orders against the deportations. In May 2025, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., appointed by Trump, ruled that applying the 227‑year‑old wartime statute in peacetime was unlawful. Meanwhile, class action suits such as J.G.G. v. Trump and W.M.M. v. Trump challenged the legality of the deportations, bringing attention to violations of due process and improper invocation of wartime powers.
Fifth Circuit: A Clear Rebuff
On September 2, 2025, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 decision in W.M.M. v. Trump. Judges Leslie H. Southwick and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, forming the majority, found that:
-
Alleged illegal immigration and criminal gang conduct—even if serious—do not justify invoking a wartime statute like the Alien Enemies Act during peacetime.
-
The facts as asserted did not meet the threshold of an “invasion” under the law’s original intent.
-
Proper seven‑day notice to individuals was sufficient for due process purposes, pending further hearings.
Judge Andrew S. Oldham, in his vigorous dissent, argued that the judiciary was overstepping by second‑guessing the executive’s decision on national security and immigration — casting doubt on whether courts should play such a role.
Ramifications and Next Steps
-
Immediate legal impact: The ruling blocks further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, though the limited seven‑day notice requirement remains intact for now.
-
Appeals trajectory: The administration may appeal the ruling to the full Fifth Circuit or petition the U.S. Supreme Court, which will likely face a pivotal question: “Can a criminal gang—even one of foreign origin—legally be treated as an “alien enemy” under wartime law?”
-
Broader implications: The decision reinforces judicial oversight, ensuring that due process and legislative intent remain pillars of immigration enforcement—even amid controversial security narratives.
This appellate decision marks a critical moment in modern immigration jurisprudence. It affirms that historical wartime powers cannot be repurposed to circumvent due process in contemporary peacetime enforcement. Legal professionals and immigration advocates must now anticipate further litigation—and a potential Supreme Court showdown—that will define the boundaries of executive authority.
At Spar & Bernstein, we remain committed to helping our clients assert their rights amid evolving statutes and litigation landscapes. Whether invoking constitutional protections, navigating habeas corpus challenges, or confronting executive overreach, our firm stands ready to provide thoughtful, solution‑oriented counsel rooted in both law and precedent.