Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Potential Use of Alien Enemies Act Against Venezuelan Detainees
A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order preventing the potential invocation of the Alien Enemies Act by former President Donald Trump, a move that five Venezuelan citizens currently detained in U.S. jails feared would lead to their immediate deportation. The Alien Enemies Act is a controversial law that allows for the deportation, without a hearing, of individuals from a designated enemy country who are not naturalized citizens of the United States. This law, historically reserved for times of war, has only been invoked three times in U.S. history.
Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, presiding in Washington, D.C., granted the temporary restraining order on Saturday, preventing the government from deporting the five Venezuelan men for at least 14 days. The order provides the court with time to further examine the legal challenges to the potential invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and assess whether it should be applied in the present circumstances.
Judge Boasberg has scheduled a hearing to determine whether the case should be considered a class action, potentially expanding its scope to include more individuals beyond the five Venezuelans currently participating in the lawsuit. An additional hearing is scheduled for Monday to further deliberate on the matter.
Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, the advocacy group representing the Venezuelan detainees, praised the court’s decision. "Yet again, the judicial system is working to protect our democracy," Perryman stated. "We are gratified to see the judge’s decision and will work on the next stages to ensure those impacted by this dangerous move to invoke war time powers when the nation is not at war – and has not been invaded – are protected."
The government has yet to formally respond to the lawsuit. However, Trump has repeatedly used war-like rhetoric when describing Mexican drug cartels and Venezuelan criminal gangs, frequently characterizing their actions as an "invasion." The former president has also formally designated cartels and the Tren de Aragua gang as terrorist organizations. Trump’s campaign rhetoric included promises to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a stance he reiterated during his inauguration speech.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of the five Venezuelan detainees, identified only by their initials, expresses concern that the former president’s potential order would unfairly label their arrival as an "invasion" or a "predatory incursion" by a "foreign nation or government." The core of their fear lies in Trump’s designation of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as a foreign terrorist organization, a move that could be interpreted as equating the gang with a foreign nation or government.
The Alien Enemies Act was initially approved by Congress in anticipation of a potential war against the United Kingdom. Its historical invocations include the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, as noted by Katherine Yon Ebright, a counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
The law stipulates that a president can invoke it during "a declared war" with a foreign nation or government, or when "any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened" against the United States. Upon invocation, foreign citizens could "be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies."
Despite its historical association with times of war, the Alien Enemies Act has been used even after the cessation of hostilities. Former Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman both continued to enforce the law after the official end of wars. Wilson used it to detain German and Austro-Hungarian immigrants for two years following the end of World War I in 1918. Truman continued to utilize the law for detentions and deportations for six years after the end of World War II in 1945.
The Supreme Court upheld Truman’s extension of the law in 1948, reasoning that the determination of the end of wartime authorities is a "political" matter. Justice Felix Frankfurter, writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision, stated, "It is not for us to question a belief by the President that enemy aliens who were justifiably deemed fit subjects for internment during active hostilities do not lose their potency for mischief during the period of confusion and conflict which is characteristic of a state of war even when the guns are silent but the peace of Peace has not come." Frankfurter further emphasized that such matters are "political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility."
This historical context and the Supreme Court’s previous interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act raise complex legal questions regarding the potential application of the law in the current circumstances, particularly given the absence of a declared war or a traditional invasion. The temporary restraining order provides the court with an opportunity to carefully consider these issues and ensure that the rights of the Venezuelan detainees are protected. The case highlights the ongoing debate about the scope of presidential power and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding individual liberties, especially in times of perceived national security threats. The legal proceedings will be closely watched as they unfold, with potential implications for immigration policy and the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government.
