This U.S. District Court ruling is a victory against former President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional use of the Alien Enemies Act. This decision is a notable advance in immigration law. This ruling is set against the backdrop of ongoing debates over the scope of executive power and the treatment of non-citizens in the United States. Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr.’s ruling was a firm rebuke of the Trump administration’s illegal incursions beyond their authority. It attempted to deport members of the Venezuelan transnational gang Tren de Aragua.
It is this last provision that Trump invoked on March 15 by means of an executive proclamation. This act was originally intended to allow the federal government to detain and deport subjects of enemy states during times of war. To date, however, it had never been applied—at least in any meaningful way—beyond its own sector. By designating Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization, right-wing President Donald Trump rendered non-citizen members inadmissible to the U.S. The court held that this invocation of the law was unsuitable under the peacetime circumstances now at hand.
Judge Rodriguez’s decision is most impactful to the home judge Southern District of Texas, which covers a large swath of the state and major cities like Houston. More importantly, he understood that Tren de Aragua was getting involved in more dangerous stuff. He ultimately decided that none of these actions met the legal burden needed to activate the Alien Enemies Act.
“The Court concludes that [Tren de Aragua’s activities] do not fall within the plain, ordinary meaning of ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’ for purposes of the AEA,” – Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr.
Adriana Pinon, legal director of the ACLU’s Texas affiliate, hailed the ruling as a win for immigrant rights. She concluded by underscoring the bill’s importance in stopping illegal executive orders that keep fear alive in our border towns.
“This permanent injunction is a significant win for preventing unlawful, unilateral executive action that has been stoking fear across Texas, especially within border communities,” – Adriana Pinon
The truth is that the Alien Enemies Act has a contentious past. Its consequence during World War II was the eventual imprisonment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and other foreign nationals. Trump became the first president to invoke it outside of wartime conditions, leading to significant pushback from various legal experts and political figures.
Now, top Congressional Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, are saying what Trump did is unconstitutional. Schumer was unequivocal, at the time focusing on how the administration was undermining hard-fought legal protections designed specifically to ensure due process for immigrants.
“The Trump administration is patently breaking the law, trying to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process,” – Chuck Schumer
Judge Rodriguez rather scathingly made the point that this was a wartime authority used in peacetime, and that Trump’s attempt to use it was an overreach.
“The court ruled the president can’t unilaterally declare an invasion of the United States and invoke a wartime authority during peacetime,” – Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the ACLU.
Gelernt went on to make the case that Congress never meant for this 18th-century law to be used this way.
“Congress never meant for this 18th-century wartime law to be used this way,” – Lee Gelernt
The Trump administration has announced its intention to appeal the decision. They will now bring their case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a court notorious for its hard-right, conservative bias. The impacts of this case aren’t just limited to Texas, as similar challenges have recently been filed in other jurisdictions. Judges in Colorado, Manhattan, and Pennsylvania have further granted temporary injunctions preventing Trump from continuing to use the Alien Enemies Act.
In another but related example of Judge James Boasberg’s progressive stewardship, he managed the relocation of three jets loaded with deportees. Despite having injunctions already prohibiting its use, they were still sent to prison in El Salvador under this law. This disturbing pattern raises serious questions about how the Alien Enemies Act will be enforced going forward. It further calls into question its compatibility with the constitutional protections that protect immigrants.
As this legal fight drags on, defenders of immigrant communities should be ready to hit back hard. They argue that immigrants should be afforded the full protection of U.S. laws and the Constitution. For them, judicial rulings like this one are crucial defenses against runaway executive power.
