In a significant development that highlights the ongoing tensions between executive authority and judicial oversight, federal judges in both New York and Texas have temporarily blocked the Trump administration's deportation efforts under the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act. These rulings represent the latest chapter in a complex legal saga that has seen the administration attempt to accelerate deportations while courts work to ensure proper due process.
The Alien Enemies Act: A 226-Year-Old Law Revived
At the center of this controversy is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law that has remained largely dormant for decades. The statute allows the president to detain and remove noncitizens during wartime or when the country is under "invasion" or experiencing a "predatory incursion" NBC News1.
President Trump invoked this rarely-used law on March 15, 2025, after declaring the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua an "invading force." Following this proclamation, immigration officials began deporting hundreds of individuals alleged to be gang members, without providing traditional immigration hearings NBC News1.
The White House's Executive Order stated: "Alien Enemies apprehended pursuant to this proclamation shall be subject to detention until removed from the United States" White House2.
The Supreme Court's Mixed Ruling
On April 7, the Supreme Court issued a significant but nuanced ruling on the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act. In a per curiam decision (Trump v. J.G.G.), the Court vacated temporary restraining orders that had been preventing deportations under the act, but with important qualifications Supreme Court3.
The Court held that challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be filed as habeas corpus petitions in the district where detainees are confined, not in the District of Columbia. However, the Court emphasized that individuals must receive proper notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal before deportation Supreme Court3.
"The detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard," the Court stated, adding that "venue lies in the district of confinement" Supreme Court3.
The Court's conservative justices formed the majority, with Justice Kavanaugh writing a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor authored a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, with Justice Barrett partially joining Supreme Court3.
Federal Judges Step In
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, federal judges in Texas and New York issued new orders on April 9 that once again temporarily block certain deportations.
In Texas, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. issued an order blocking the removal of any person held in El Valle Detention Center in Raymondville who could be subject to the president's proclamation. The judge also prohibited the transportation or relocation of such persons outside of Willacy and Cameron counties in Texas without a court order until April 23 NBC News1.
Judge Rodriguez stated he issued the order to "prevent the immediate and irreparable injury that may occur with the immediate removal of any Venezuelan" immigrant subject to the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act CBS News4.
In New York, District Judge Alvin Hellerstein similarly announced a temporary restraining order, blocking deportations of Venezuelan migrants held in that jurisdiction until they are given appropriate notice and the opportunity to challenge the government's allegations in court NBC News1.
The Venezuelan Deportation Crisis
The impact of these policies has been significant. According to a Reuters investigation, the Trump administration deported 238 Venezuelans to El Salvador, labeling them as gang members without giving them a chance to contest these allegations in court Reuters5.
Perhaps most troubling is the fact that 27 of these individuals still had active asylum cases and upcoming immigration court hearings, according to court records. Judges in several cases reportedly expressed shock upon discovering that migrants failed to attend scheduled court dates because they had been deported Reuters5.
The deportees, including 19-year-old Leonel Echavez who was taken from his Dallas home, were sent to facilities in El Salvador, with some transported directly to what is described as "El Salvador's most notorious prison" Reuters5.
Legal Challenges and Due Process Concerns
Civil rights groups, particularly the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have been at the forefront of challenging these deportations through habeas petitions in federal courts.
A key legal argument centers on the questionable criteria used by the administration to identify alleged gang members. The ACLU has presented evidence that the government employs a points system that factors in tattoos, hand gestures, and clothing styles to determine gang affiliation—methods that critics argue are highly unreliable and prone to error Reuters5.
Furthermore, attorneys argue that the Alien Enemies Act's invocation is unconstitutional because "the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela." They note that historically, the law has only been used three times, all during formally declared wars CBS News4.
Constitutional and Historical Context
The use of the Alien Enemies Act raises profound constitutional questions. Dating back to 1798, the law was part of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts passed during John Adams' presidency, a period of heightened tensions with France.
The law was last actively used during World War II, when it was employed to detain nationals from Axis powers such as Germany, Italy, and Japan. Its application outside the context of a declared war represents a significant expansion of executive power in immigration enforcement NBC News6.
Legal scholars have noted similarities to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, a policy that was later acknowledged as a grave injustice. The Supreme Court infamously upheld those detentions in Korematsu v. United States (1944), a decision that has since been widely discredited Supreme Court3.
The Road Ahead
As this legal battle continues, several key questions remain unresolved:
- How will the administration respond to these new judicial orders?
- What will happen to the asylum cases of those already deported?
- Can the government provide evidence that meets judicial scrutiny regarding gang affiliations?
- Will Congress step in to address this controversial use of executive power?
The Supreme Court's ruling, while allowing deportations to continue under certain circumstances, emphasized that due process rights apply even under the Alien Enemies Act. The Court stated that individuals must receive proper notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal before deportation Supreme Court3.
International Implications
The deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador rather than Venezuela itself adds another layer of complexity to this situation. El Salvador, under President Nayib Bukele, has cooperated with the Trump administration on immigration matters, agreeing to accept deportees from Venezuela Reuters5.
This arrangement raises questions about diplomatic relationships and the treatment of deportees in a third country. Reports indicate that some deportees are being held in El Salvador's maximum-security prisons without clear legal status or pathways to return to their home country Reuters5.
Conclusion: Balance of Powers
This ongoing saga exemplifies the tension between executive authority and judicial oversight in the realm of immigration policy. While the administration argues that extraordinary measures are necessary to address what it characterizes as a national security threat, courts have insisted that even in such circumstances, constitutional protections and due process rights must be respected.
As Judge Hellerstein noted in his ruling, the government must provide appropriate notice and allow detainees the opportunity to challenge allegations in court before deportation can proceed NBC News1.
The coming weeks will likely see further legal developments as these cases proceed through the courts. For now, the federal judiciary has once again asserted its role as a check on executive power, ensuring that even century-old laws must be applied in accordance with contemporary constitutional standards.
Whether this represents a temporary setback for the administration's immigration agenda or a more significant limitation on executive authority in immigration enforcement remains to be seen. What is clear is that the balance of powers established by the Constitution continues to shape one of the most contentious policy areas in American politics.
