Federal judges block Trump’s Venezuelan deportation under Alien Enemies Act

Court hearings required before removal of alleged Tren de Aragua members, judges rule.

"Freedom for those kidnapped in El Salvador," reads a protester's sign during a demonstration against the deportation of alleged Venezuelan criminals from the United States to a high-security prison in El Salvador, on April 9, 2025, in Caracas, Venezuela. Photo by Jesus Vargas/dpa

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

Federal judges block Trump’s Venezuelan deportation under Alien Enemies Act, ruling that alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua must receive court hearings before being expelled from the United States. The decisions, issued by judges in both New York and Texas on Wednesday, came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed deportations under the 1798-era law to proceed—but only if due process is observed.

These rulings mark the first major legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for mass deportations. Originally passed in 1798 and previously enforced only during major wars like the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, the AEA is now being tested in a modern political and legal climate with deep immigration implications.

The Trump administration had moved swiftly to deport dozens of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliations, without allowing them to argue their cases in court. Now, federal judges have blocked Trump’s Venezuelan deportation under the Alien Enemies Act, at least temporarily, setting the stage for a broader judicial battle over the limits of presidential authority in immigration enforcement.

Supreme Court opens the door—then courts step in

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s nationwide ban that had previously halted the deportation of undocumented Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. The high court’s decision granted the administration the authority to proceed—but with a catch: those targeted must first be given notice and a fair opportunity to contest their deportation in court.

Barely two days later, judges in New York and Texas stepped in to enforce that requirement. In Manhattan, District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued a temporary restraining order in the case of two Venezuelan men identified only by their initials. Meanwhile, in Brownsville, Texas, Trump-appointed District Judge Fernando Rodriguez did the same for three other Venezuelans in a separate but parallel case.

In both instances, the judges emphasized that even under the Alien Enemies Act, due process cannot be discarded.

“We are a nation governed by laws,” Judge Hellerstein wrote in his order. “Even in times of national emergency, those laws must be observed.”

Tren de Aragua and the Maduro connection

The deportation controversy centers on Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan gang that U.S. officials say has expanded its reach into Latin America and even parts of the United States. The Trump administration has labeled the group a national security threat and claimed it is aligned with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

According to the White House, the gang is “perpetrating an invasion” of the U.S., and several high-profile crimes allegedly tied to its members have furthered this narrative in conservative media circles. As a result, the administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act in an attempt to quickly remove suspected gang affiliates.

Last month, several dozen Venezuelan migrants were apprehended in immigration raids, placed on military transport planes, and flown to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. The swift deportations drew criticism from civil liberties groups, especially after lawyers for several deportees claimed their clients were not gang members and had no criminal records.

Instead, they say, many were profiled based on visible tattoos—some of which had no known gang significance.

“These individuals were never shown evidence, never had a chance to speak in their defense,” said Ana Morales, a lawyer representing two of the Venezuelan men. “This is a dangerous precedent. If we allow this now, who’s next?”

Legal gray area: AEA’s historical weight versus modern law

The Alien Enemies Act has rarely been used in modern times. Originally part of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts passed during President John Adams’ administration, the law was designed to allow the U.S. government to detain and deport nationals of enemy countries during wartime.

But critics argue the current situation—targeting individuals from a country with which the U.S. is not at war—does not fit the spirit or letter of the law.

President Trump, however, insists that the “invasion” of gang members constitutes an undeclared state of conflict with hostile foreign actors, particularly those linked to regimes like Maduro’s.

In legal terms, this argument occupies a murky space. The Supreme Court has historically given presidents wide latitude during national emergencies, especially when it comes to immigration and national security. But that latitude is not unlimited, and the federal courts are now stepping in to draw boundaries.

This legal fight comes as Trump seeks to return to the White House in the 2024 election. Immigration remains one of his signature issues, and his recent pivot to invoking obscure wartime-era statutes reflects both a hardline stance and a willingness to test legal limits.

For his supporters, it’s evidence of bold leadership. For his critics, it’s a dangerous erosion of civil liberties.

The Biden administration, which has mostly remained silent on the latest AEA enforcement wave, is likely watching the legal proceedings closely. Any misstep or perceived indifference could be politically costly, especially with immigration emerging once again as a top concern among voters.

What’s next?

The temporary restraining orders issued in New York and Texas are just the beginning. The next phase will involve full hearings where the legal merits of the Trump administration’s actions will be argued in detail.

The key legal question is whether the government can bypass normal immigration protocols by invoking the Alien Enemies Act, and whether such a bypass is constitutional without explicit wartime context. These cases could eventually make their way back to the Supreme Court, setting a precedent with profound implications for U.S. immigration policy.

For now, federal judges have blocked Trump’s Venezuelan deportation under the Alien Enemies Act, asserting the principle that even under old wartime laws, the right to a fair hearing remains intact.