A federal appellate court has ruled 2-1 against the Alien Enemies Act (an 18th-century wartime law) as used by the Donald Trump administration to deport Venezuelan nationals accused of gang affiliation. The panel found that the administration’s invocation of the law did not meet the legal requirements—specifically, the court held that the migrants’ case did not involve a “war,” “invasion,” or “predatory incursion” as the statute contemplates. The decision paused the administration’s deportation policy under that law while litigation continues.
The legal challenge focused heavily on constitutional due-process protections. Critics argued that the government was attempting to use a rarely invoked wartime statute to sidestep traditional immigration law, removing individuals without meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal. The appellate decision underscored that migrants subject to the law must receive sufficient notice and access to habeas corpus protections before being deported. The case has raised broad questions about executive power, immigration enforcement, and judicial review in national-security contexts.
Key judges involved included Patricia Millett (an Obama appointee) and other appellate panel members who debated how the statute should apply, particularly regarding timing and venue for individuals to seek legal relief. The dissenting judge warned that the ruling restricts the President’s authority and elevates judicial oversight. On the executive branch side, Pam Bondi (Attorney General) publicly criticised the court’s decision and pledged to take the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States if necessary.
In summary, the appellate ruling represents a major setback for the administration’s attempt to broadly apply a centuries-old wartime law to modern immigration enforcement. It reinforces that even in matters involving national security, the courts will demand that individuals receive due process protections before removal. With the policy now in limbo, many anticipate an appeal to the Supreme Court, where the broader implications of presidential and judicial power over immigration remain unresolved.
