A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting individuals under a 1798 law that President Trump invoked just hours earlier. The President claimed the U.S. was being invaded by a Venezuelan gang and that the law granted him new powers to expel its members.Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia explained that he had to act quickly because the government had already begun moving migrants to El Salvador and Honduras, claiming they were now deportable under Trump’s proclamation. During a Saturday night hearing in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and Democracy Forward, Boasberg stated, “I don’t think I can wait any longer, and I am compelled to act. A brief delay in their deportation will not harm the government,” adding that the individuals in question remain in government custody.
The ruling came hours after Trump claimed that the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, was invading the U.S. and invoked the 1798 Enemy Alien Act, a sweeping wartime authority that allows the president to accelerate mass deportations. This move could accelerate Trump’s promised crackdown on immigration. Trump contends that Tren de Aragua is a hostile force operating at the behest of the Venezuelan government, calling it part of a “hybrid criminal state” that poses a significant danger to the U.S. The Enemy Alien Act has been used only three times in U.S. history: during World War II, World War I, and the War of 1812. Trump argued that its use is justified now because he claims Tren de Aragua, a frequent topic in his campaign, has ties to the leftist Venezuelan regime of Nicolás Maduro.
The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU and Democracy Forward, represents five Venezuelans whose deportation cases were suddenly expedited in recent hours. Before the evening hearing, Boasberg agreed to implement a temporary restraining order that would block the deportation of these five individuals for 14 days, as allowed by law. The judge stated that his order was to “preserve the status quo” and scheduled a hearing to determine whether the order should be extended to protect all Venezuelans in the U.S. Hours later, the Trump administration appealed the initial restraining order, arguing that halting a presidential action before it had even been announced would paralyze the executive branch.
The Justice Department warned that if the order were allowed to stand, “district courts would have a license to enjoin virtually any urgent national security action simply by receiving a complaint.” It added that this could empower courts to issue temporary restraining orders on actions such as drone strikes, sensitive intelligence operations, or the capture or extradition of terrorists. The department argued that the court should “halt that path immediately.” This unprecedented wave of litigation highlights the controversial 227-year-old law, which could grant Trump broad power to deport individuals in the country without authorization. It could allow him to bypass certain protections in criminal and immigration laws to quickly deport those his administration deems gang members.
The White House has already designated Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization and is preparing to transfer approximately 300 individuals identified as gang members to detention in El Salvador. The case underscores the deep tensions over immigration policy and executive authority, as Trump continues to push for stricter enforcement and his opponents fight to limit his powers. The legal battle is far from over, with significant implications for both national security and individual rights. The use of such an antiquated law raises questions about its relevance in modern times and whether it aligns with contemporary legal and ethical standards. As the case progresses, it will likely set a precedent for how future administrations handle immigration and national security issues.
In summary, the situation reflects a broader struggle over immigration policy, executive power, and the interpretation of ancient laws in contemporary contexts. The ruling temporarily halts the administration’s plans, but the legal and political battles are far from resolved. The outcome could have profound implications for immigration enforcement, national security, and the balance of power in the U.S. government.
