- The Fifth Circuit dismissed the legal challenge against the Alien Enemies Act because plaintiffs were already deported.
- A previous ruling that called the administration’s use unlawful has effectively been wiped away by this dismissal.
- The court did not decide if migration or gang activity constitutes a military-style invasion under the law.
The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a challenge to President Donald Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act after the administration deported all three named plaintiffs under other immigration authorities.
The court ruled Thursday that W.M.M. v. Trump had become moot. The plaintiffs, three Venezuelan nationals identified as W.M.M., F.G.M. and A.R.P., had challenged their threatened removal while representing a proposed class of detainees.
The case no longer presented a live dispute, the majority held. Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod said the deportations removed the immediate controversy because the individuals were no longer in the United States or facing removal under the act.
The legal question remains open. The dismissal did not decide whether a president may declare an “invasion” and use the law to remove people outside a declared war.
The ruling also appears to wipe away an earlier panel decision. That September 2025 ruling had found the administration’s use of the statute unlawful.
The administration removed the plaintiffs under separate provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act while the en banc rehearing was pending. The appeals court resolved the procedural posture without reaching the merits of the underlying constitutional dispute.
The court dismissed the appeal after the plaintiffs left the country
The lawsuit began after Trump invoked the statute against alleged Venezuelan members of the Tren de Aragua gang. His March 14, 2025, proclamation, identified as Proclamation 10903, described the gang’s activity as an “invasion.”
The 1798 law permits the president to detain and remove nationals of a country that is at war with the United States, or that has carried out an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” It had not been used for 75 years before Trump’s March 2025 proclamation.
The government initially sent 251 Venezuelan immigrants to the maximum-security prison known as CECOT in El Salvador. Later reports put the figure at 280+.
The named plaintiffs and other proposed class members received 24-hour removal notices and faced transfer to the prison. The litigation argued that the administration could not use the statute to bypass ordinary immigration procedures based on alleged gang membership and migration.
The September 2025 panel ruling rejected the government’s position. A 2-1 panel led by Judge Leslie Southwick concluded that drug smuggling and migration did not amount to the kind of military-style “invasion” contemplated by the 1798 law.
That decision no longer supplies a binding answer in the case after Thursday’s dismissal. The court’s action leaves the statute’s use outside a declared war undecided in the circuit.
DOJ defended a reading that could reach the “British Invasion”
During en banc oral arguments, Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign acknowledged that the administration’s broad interpretation could theoretically reach a famous musical phrase.
Ensign said the government’s reading could theoretically allow a president to invoke the act against rock stars such as The Beatles. The example tested whether the statutory terms could reach conduct far removed from a conventional military attack.
Judge James Ho, writing separately, said the court should have reached the merits. He wrote that the president is entitled to “absolute deference” when determining whether an “invasion” has occurred.
The majority instead focused on the plaintiffs’ individual circumstances. Once the administration deported them under standard immigration laws, the court concluded that they no longer faced the specific removal threat challenged in the lawsuit.
The case had been brought as a proposed class action. The dismissal is a procedural defeat for that effort, and challengers may seek new class representatives in district court.
The dismissal does not erase other limits on removals
A separate Supreme Court order continues to constrain the administration’s use of the statute. The court’s May 16, 2025, stay held that the 24-hour notice given to detainees violated Due Process.
“The Supreme Court's injunction barring use of the Alien Enemies Act remains in place. the Fifth Circuit decision also doesn't change the fact that courts have overwhelmingly held that the use of this wartime authority during peacetime is unlawful,” said Lee Gelernt, lead attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
That order addresses notice and due process. Thursday’s ruling addressed mootness. Neither supplied a final appellate decision on whether the president may classify migration or alleged gang activity as an invasion under the statute.
The named plaintiffs’ appeal has ended, the earlier panel ruling appears to have been vacated, and the Supreme Court’s separate restrictions remain relevant to future removals.
A separate order required action for some deported Venezuelans
The litigation also sits alongside a February 2026 order from Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That order required the government to facilitate the return of certain Venezuelans deported under the statute who had been denied due process.
The order does not resolve the en banc appeal. It creates a separate avenue for addressing people already removed from the United States.
The case number for the en banc litigation is 25-10534. The matter was formerly known as A.A.R.P. v. Trump before proceeding as W.M.M., et al. v. Trump, et al.
The full en banc court included all 17 judges. Its Thursday, August 13, 2026, dismissal means future challengers may need to present claims through different plaintiffs or a different procedural vehicle if they want a court to decide the statute’s scope.
That question may return through district court proceedings, including efforts to add class representatives. The Fifth Circuit’s dismissal leaves the president’s authority under the 1798 law unresolved in the circuit.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
