A federal judge in Texas issued a permanent order on Thursday barring the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a law dating back to 1798, to deport Venezuelan nationals from the Southern District of Texas. Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. ruled that the White House’s use of the law is unlawful in the current context.
Judge Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, delivered the broadest ruling to date among the various legal challenges against the administration’s attempt to apply this rarely used wartime statute. His 36-page decision rejects the use of the Alien Enemies Act—originally enacted in response to the threat of war with France—for modern immigration policy.
Although the Supreme Court has already determined that any Venezuelan the White House seeks to expel under Trump's proclamation invoking the law must be given the opportunity to contest their removal, Judge Rodriguez's ruling goes further. He argues that the White House has misapplied the law, which was intended to target nationals of a hostile power during a declared war or military invasion.
Judge Rodriguez wrote that “the Court concludes that, as a matter of law, the Executive may not rely on the AEA, based on the proclamation, to detain the named petitioners and the certified class, nor to remove them from the country.” He further found that the “plain meaning” of terms in the law such as “invasion” and “predatory incursion” refers to an attack by “military forces,” which does not align with Trump’s claims about the activities of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua in the proclamation.
While the decision specifically applies to Venezuelan immigrants in the Southern District of Texas—which includes cities like Houston, Brownsville, and Laredo—it may influence other pending cases involving the administration’s use of the AEA.
At the beginning of his opinion, Judge Rodriguez dismissed a Justice Department argument that he lacked authority to review the White House’s application of the law. Though he acknowledged the “broad powers” granted to the president under the statute, he affirmed the judiciary’s role in determining whether the executive is applying it lawfully, writing that “the Court retains the authority to interpret the terms of the AEA and determine whether the stated basis for the proclamation properly invokes the statute.”
However, the judge made clear that it is not his role to assess the truth of Trump’s underlying claims—such as the disputed assertion that Tren de Aragua is controlled by the Venezuelan government—which U.S. intelligence agencies have questioned. He indicated that such judgments fall within the purview of the political branches.
Despite legal victories by the ACLU in halting new deportations under the law, the organization has yet to secure the return of nearly 140 Venezuelans who were flown to El Salvador on March 15. These individuals remain in custody at the Center for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT). ACLU attorneys recently asked Judge James E. Boasberg in Washington, D.C., to order the administration to bring the men back to U.S. soil so they can receive due process. Their request cited a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, another immigrant deported to El Salvador, in which the justices stated the White House must “facilitate” his release.
The Justice Department was expected to file documents opposing the ACLU’s request to return the Venezuelans from El Salvador by the end of Thursday. The White House has not issued an immediate response to Judge Rodriguez’s ruling.
Comentarios
Para comentar, debés estar registrado
Por favor, iniciá sesión