Appeals Court Blocks Trump From Deporting TdA Members Under AEA

(EL SALVADOR) A federal appeals court has blocked President Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to fast-track deportations of alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, a sharp rebuke that reshapes how the United States can conduct removals tied to transnational crime.

In a 2–1 decision on September 2, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 1798 statute does not cover criminal gang activity and cannot be used absent a declared war or a true invasion. The ruling, effective in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, halts a central tool the administration deployed after a March order that targeted Venezuelan migrants as young as 14 suspected of Tren de Aragua ties.

The decision follows months of legal battles. On March 14, 2025, President Trump signed Proclamation 10903 to invoke the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against suspected Tren de Aragua members without U.S. citizenship or permanent residency. The next day, the administration began mass detentions and deportations; according to court filings and advocacy groups, nearly 300 people were moved, including 238 Venezuelans sent to El Salvador under a bilateral arrangement.

Many had ongoing immigration cases, no criminal convictions in the United States, and received little chance to contest the government’s claims before being taken to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison.

By late April, federal courts stepped in. On April 19, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order that paused some deportations from a Texas district; on May 16, that hold became an injunction. Civil rights groups—the ACLU and Democracy Forward among them—brought class actions arguing that the AEA cannot replace normal immigration court procedures. Those suits set the stage for the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, which became the most current and authoritative update as of September 5, 2025.

Ruling and Immediate Effects

The Fifth Circuit majority found no legal basis to treat Tren de Aragua’s crimes as an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” within the meaning of the Alien Enemies Act. The panel wrote that a country encouraging people to enter unlawfully is not the same as sending an organized force to occupy or harm the United States.

The court stressed that the AEA has only been used during declared wars—the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II—and that its use against a non-state criminal network is unprecedented.

Key practical outcomes now apply:

• No expedited removals under the Alien Enemies Act for alleged Tren de Aragua members in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
• Deportations may proceed under regular immigration law, with hearings, the chance to present evidence, and the right to counsel at one’s own expense.
• Those previously deported under the AEA remain in limbo. More than 250 deportees sent to El Salvador have since been returned to Venezuela under a July 2025 deal, while others remain detained or unaccounted for, according to rights groups.

The administration can ask the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the case or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. As of September 5, there has been no official announcement of an appeal. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said, “We expect to be vindicated on the merits in this case,” signaling the government’s view that national security and presidential power justify the approach.

Legal Reasoning and Wider Stakes

The majority opinion drew a bright line around wartime authority and domestic law enforcement. It held that the Alien Enemies Act is a narrow tool tied to conflicts between nations, not a general-purpose removal power for suspected gang members. That framing matters: it limits the executive branch from repurposing wartime laws to bypass immigration courts.

Legal specialists note:

• The government can still pursue removals under INA provisions, but it must use established procedures that include due process.
• The ruling now guides federal courts across the Fifth Circuit and could influence judges elsewhere who face similar claims.
• If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the stakes would extend beyond Tren de Aragua to broader questions about the reach of presidential power in immigration and national security.

A high court decision could either lock in limits on wartime statutes in immigration settings or give the executive broader leeway in future crises.

This ruling also touches a live policy debate: how to respond to cross-border crime without erasing procedural protections. The Trump administration argues that Tren de Aragua’s reach into U.S. communities warrants swift action. Immigrant rights groups respond that speed cannot come at the cost of fairness, especially when many people flagged as gang members have no convictions and face severe harm if removed.

The court’s framing limits the executive from repurposing old wartime laws to bypass immigration due process.

Human Impact and Next Steps

For families spread across borders, the change brings both relief and uncertainty.

• People who were at risk of rapid removal now have access to immigration courts. That means they can challenge allegations, seek relief, or appeal a judge’s decision.
• Individuals already deported under the AEA face a maze of outcomes. Some who were sent to El Salvador report indefinite confinement without clear charges or contact with lawyers.
• Rights organizations are urging scrutiny of conditions in CECOT and calling for a process to review each case, including possible returns to the United States for those removed without fair hearings.

For those currently in the United States, lawyers advise:

1. Keep paperwork in order and be ready to answer questions raised during background checks.
2. Attend all hearings and maintain communication with counsel.
3. Understand that while the AEA route is closed in the Fifth Circuit, the government can still pursue cases under regular law, especially with independent evidence of criminal activity.

If the administration seeks Supreme Court review, a stay request could follow. That would ask the Court to let the AEA process restart while the appeal proceeds. Observers will watch whether the justices accept the case and, if so, whether they leave the Fifth Circuit’s block in place. Until then, regular immigration law governs these deportations in the affected states.

Advocates also highlight the historic context. The Alien Enemies Act, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, has rarely been used and only in times of declared war. Applying it to a transnational gang is a first, and the court’s rejection signals resistance to expanding old wartime powers into modern immigration enforcement.

Legal scholars say that if the executive needs faster tools, Congress—not the courts—would have to provide them.

For official court documents and updates on the case docket, readers can consult the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov. Civil society groups will continue to post filings and advisories for those affected.

What People Can Do Now

• If you or a family member was targeted under the AEA: Seek legal counsel to review your case history, any removal orders, and options to reopen.
• If you have a pending case: Keep your address updated with the court, attend all hearings, and save copies of all notices and filings.
• If you were deported under the AEA and remain detained abroad: Document your detention conditions through trusted contacts and connect with rights groups pressing for case reviews.

As the legal fight moves forward, the core question remains whether wartime laws can short‑circuit immigration due process in the name of speed and security. For now, the Fifth Circuit says no—regular rules apply, and deportations tied to Tren de Aragua must run through the same courts that handle every other case.