Federal Judge Upholds Use of Alien Enemies Act in Deportation of Venezuelan Migrants
In a significant legal development, former President Donald Trump secured a notable victory concerning his administration’s immigration policy. On May 14, 2025, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines upheld the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to deport certain Venezuelan migrants.
This ruling specifically targets non-citizen, non-permanent resident Venezuelans aged 14 and older, alleged to be affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang, which the administration has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Background on the Alien Enemies Act and Executive Action
The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, grants the U.S. President authority to detain and deport nationals from countries with which the United States is at war. Historically, it has been invoked during significant conflicts, such as the War of 1812 and World Wars I and II.
In March 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14159, titled “Protecting The American People Against Invasion.” This order expanded the use of expedited removal processes, denied federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, and increased penalties for undocumented immigrants failing to register. The administration justified these measures by alleging that the Tren de Aragua gang posed a national security threat akin to an invasion.
Judicial Response and Legal Challenges
Judge Haines’ ruling contrasts with decisions from other federal courts. For instance, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg in Washington, D.C., previously blocked the administration’s use of the AEA for deportations, stating that the act requires the threat to originate from a foreign government or nation.
Despite these challenges, the Trump administration proceeded with deportations. In March 2025, approximately 137 Venezuelans were deported to El Salvador and detained in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a facility known for its harsh conditions. Many of these individuals were held without trial or clear evidence of gang affiliation.
Supreme Court Involvement
The legal battle escalated to the Supreme Court, which, on April 7, 2025, in a 5-4 decision, lifted Judge Boasberg’s order that had blocked the summary deportations. The Court ruled that challenges to removal must be filed in the jurisdiction where the petitioner is detained, effectively allowing the administration to continue its deportation efforts under the AEA while litigation proceeds.
Political and Humanitarian Repercussions
The administration’s actions have drawn criticism from various quarters. Human rights organizations argue that the use of the AEA in this context bypasses due process and lacks transparency. The deportations have also led to humanitarian concerns, exemplified by the case of a 2-year-old Venezuelan girl who was separated from her parents during the deportation process and later reunited with her mother in Caracas.
Additionally, the administration’s approach has strained relations with sanctuary cities and states, many of which have vowed not to comply with federal deportation efforts. Legal challenges from these jurisdictions continue to mount, focusing on the constitutionality of the administration’s immigration policies.
Conclusion
Judge Haines’ ruling marks a pivotal moment in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, reinforcing the executive branch’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act. As legal battles continue and the Supreme Court’s involvement deepens, the balance between national security and individual rights remains at the forefront of this contentious issue.