Appeals Court Rules Trump Can’t Use Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelan Deportations

(UNITED STATES) A federal appeals court has ruled that President Trump cannot use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants, rejecting claims that the current movement across the border amounts to an “invasion or predatory incursion.” In a decision issued on Tuesday, August 26, 2025, the Fifth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction blocking removals under that statute for Venezuelans who sued in the Northern District of Texas.

While the ruling narrows a key enforcement tool, the court noted the government may still pursue deportations under other immigration laws.

Key holdings and immediate effect

• The panel found the record did not show an “armed, organized force” entering the United States—an element the court read into the Alien Enemies Act’s historic terms.
• The court emphasized: “A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States.”
• Without evidence of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” the administration cannot rely on the 18th-century law to short-circuit standard procedures.
• The injunction applies only to the plaintiffs in the Northern District of Texas case, not to all Venezuelan migrants nationwide. It prevents the government from using the Alien Enemies Act against those individuals while the case proceeds.

Case background and procedural history

• Migrants detained in Texas sued earlier in 2025 to halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act.
• A district judge initially denied relief; the Fifth Circuit first said it lacked jurisdiction.
• In April 2025, the Supreme Court paused removals and later ruled the Fifth Circuit was wrong to dismiss the appeal, sending the case back for full review.
• The August ruling is another legal setback for the administration’s use of this wartime statute in a non-war setting.

Government argument and court response

• The administration argued that Venezuela, through the Tren de Aragua gang, was directing a mass illegal migration that qualified as an “incursion” under the statute.
• The court disagreed, emphasizing:
  • the historic meaning of the law, and
  • the absence of findings that the movement constituted an armed, organized force.
• As a result, the Alien Enemies Act could not be invoked to bypass ordinary immigration safeguards in this instance.

What the ruling does now

1. Blocks removals under the Alien Enemies Act for the plaintiffs covered by the case.
2. Leaves other enforcement tools intact, including standard immigration laws that require individualized hearings.
3. Signals a higher legal threshold before a president can invoke the Alien Enemies Act for migration control.

About the Alien Enemies Act

• Part of four laws passed in 1798, the Alien Enemies Act allows the president to detain or remove citizens of a hostile nation during an “invasion or predatory incursion.”
• In early 2025, the administration used it to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants, many accused of ties to Tren de Aragua.
  • Some were sent to a supermax facility in El Salvador.
  • Others were returned to Venezuela in a July 2025 prisoner swap.
• Investigations, including a “60 Minutes” report, found many of those deported had no criminal records, fueling claims that migrants were removed without proper checks.

Court reasoning and legal stakes

• The Fifth Circuit’s interpretation focuses on history and text: mass, irregular migration—without proof of armed organization—does not match the hostile entry the 1798 law contemplated.
• That interpretation curbs the executive’s reach when using a wartime tool to manage peacetime migration pressures.
• Legal scholars say the ruling draws a line between:
  • national security statutes (requiring high thresholds), and
  • ordinary immigration enforcement, which typically requires case-by-case adjudication and due process safeguards.
• The decision does not resolve the policy debate over border enforcement tools, but it sets a legal boundary: without evidence of an invasion as defined by the statute, the Alien Enemies Act cannot support removals.

The Fifth Circuit tied “invasion or predatory incursion” to armed, organized force, suggesting 18th‑century national security powers can’t be repurposed for modern migration flows without strong factual evidence.

Practical consequences and next steps

• The government must return to existing pathways for removal when applicable:
  • Expedited removal under the immigration code,
  • Regular removal proceedings before an immigration judge,
  • Criminal prosecutions where appropriate.
• Those processes require:
  • notices to appear,
  • opportunities to seek relief,
  • and (where available) access to counsel.
• While slower than wartime-style expulsions, they provide individualized review courts require when liberty and return to danger may be at stake.

Strategic options for the government and Congress

• The White House may seek further review:
  • an en banc rehearing before the full Fifth Circuit, or
  • a return to the Supreme Court.
• The Justice Department could shift strategy to emphasize other statutory grounds for detention and removal that don’t depend on showing an invasion.
• Congress could clarify or amend the Alien Enemies Act, though no bills were pending as of September 3, 2025.

Impact on migrants and legal advice

• The human toll remains central: Venezuelan families caught in fast-track removals report confusion and fear, unsure where to seek help or how to present claims.
• With the injunction in place for the plaintiffs, attorneys report they can now:
  • prepare defenses,
  • gather evidence (including proof of persecution or absence of criminal history).
• Practical recommendations for affected individuals:
  • Keep close contact with counsel,
  • Save all official notices and records,
  • Attend all hearings (missing a hearing can trigger automatic, hard-to-fix orders),
  • Ask about legal options such as asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Broader implications and commentary

• According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the decision will likely push the administration to rely more on tools already tested in court rather than stretching historical statutes.
• That could mean:
  • more resources for asylum screening,
  • expanded detention capacity,
  • more funding and attention to immigration courts,
  • increased coordination with local law enforcement on gang-related cases.

Where to follow updates

• The official docket and updates are available from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Parties and the public can track filings, orders, and schedules as the case continues.
• For policy updates, monitor Department of Homeland Security public notices.
• Legal aid groups advise those affected to seek counsel promptly and keep all documents safe.

For now, the Fifth Circuit’s answer is clear: the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used to carry the weight of modern migration control without proof resembling war rather than migration.