Venezuelans Detained Under Alien Enemies Act Challenge Deportation, Citing Unprecedented Application of Law
A group of five Venezuelan nationals, currently detained on immigration-related matters, have vehemently challenged the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act as justification for their deportation. They described the government’s argument as "staggering" and have urged a federal appeals court to uphold a lower court judge’s order that temporarily blocked their removal from the United States.
The core of the dispute revolves around President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798, to expedite the deportation process for individuals alleged to be associated with the Venezuelan criminal organization known as Tren de Aragua. This law, historically, has only been employed during times of declared war against foreign nations. The five Venezuelan individuals, identified solely by their initials, maintain their innocence and explicitly deny any affiliation with the aforementioned criminal group. They have initiated a federal lawsuit to contest the unprecedented application of the Alien Enemies Act in their cases, fearing the repercussions of deportation.
Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, presiding in Washington D.C., issued a temporary halt to their deportations on Saturday, pending further litigation of the case. This decision was met with resistance from the Trump administration, which promptly appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn Boasberg’s temporary restraining order.
Attorneys representing the Venezuelans, affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Democracy Forward Foundation, have argued that invoking the Alien Enemies Act against a criminal gang is fundamentally incompatible with the statute’s original intent and historical application. They emphasize that the law was specifically designed to apply to citizens of countries at war with the United States or to individuals representing a foreign government that has initiated an invasion of U.S. territory. The lawyers highlight the absence of either of these conditions in the current situation.
The controversy surrounding the use of the Alien Enemies Act is further intensified by reports that hundreds of Venezuelan nationals were deported to El Salvador on Saturday under the same legal justification. El Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele publicly stated on social media that these individuals could be detained for up to a year, contingent upon a $6 million payment from the United States, with the possibility of extending the detention period.
The legal representatives for the Venezuelan detainees underscore the potentially far-reaching consequences of allowing the government’s interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act to stand. They warn that creating an exception to the law could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to the indefinite detention and deportation of individuals based solely on arbitrary designations.
"The implications of the government’s position are staggering," the lawyers wrote in their legal filings. "If the President can designate any group as enemy aliens under the Act, and that designation is unreviewable, then there is no limit on who can be sent to a Salvadoran prison, or any limit on how long they will remain there."
Historical records indicate that the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked sparingly throughout American history, specifically during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. However, President Trump and his legal team assert that Tren de Aragua constitutes an "invasion" of the United States for criminal purposes, thereby justifying the application of the Alien Enemies Act.
The Justice Department has been given until 5 p.m. on Wednesday to respond to the arguments presented by the Venezuelan detainees’ legal representatives. In a separate development, government lawyers have also called for Judge Boasberg’s recusal from the case. They argue that Boasberg is overstepping his judicial authority by questioning deportations ordered by the President, who they claim acts as commander-in-chief of the military in carrying out these flights. The government lawyers further contend that the judge is interfering with the executive branch’s dealings with foreign governments.
President Trump has publicly criticized Judge Boasberg and called for his impeachment. In response, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare rebuke, criticizing the President for attacking the judge personally instead of pursuing a formal appeal of the judge’s decision through established legal channels. The judiciary’s independence remains a cornerstone of the American legal system, and it is vital that judges are not subject to undue political pressure or personal attacks.
The future of the five Venezuelans detained, and indeed many other Venezuelans who may be affected, now hinges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
