Court Dismisses Challenge to Trump's Use of 18th-Century Deportation Law

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a challenge to former President Donald Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals identified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The court deemed the case moot because all three Venezuelan plaintiffs had already been removed from the United States under separate immigration authorities.

The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in the late 18th century, allows the president to detain and remove non-naturalized individuals from hostile nations under specific wartime or invasion circumstances. This law had not been invoked since President Harry Truman's administration in 1946 before Trump's presidency.

The Trump administration had argued that the gang activity of Tren de Aragua constituted an "invasion or predatory incursion" under the act, seeking to leverage this authority for broader immigration enforcement and expedited removal of suspected gang members. The Supreme Court had previously blocked removals under the Act while the case was pending, but did not rule on the statute's legality, remanding the question to the Fifth Circuit.

Advancing American Freedom, a conservative policy organization, stated that the Fifth Circuit's decision vacates a prior ruling that deemed Trump's invocation of the Act unlawful, thus preserving the president's powers under the statute. However, the organization noted the court avoided addressing the merits of the case, leaving the Alien Enemies Act's legality as an open question likely to be decided in future litigation.

Two judges on the Fifth Circuit, in concurring opinions, suggested that the president's use of the law was appropriate. Judge James Ho wrote that courts should defer to a president's declaration of an invasion, including in the context of illegal immigration. Judge Andrew Oldham also agreed that Trump's invocation of the Act was legally sound.

Conversely, George Mason law professor Ilya Somin argued that allowing a president to define an "invasion" through mere assertion would transform emergency powers into unchecked presidential authority, which he contends is contrary to the Act's text and the Constitution. The court's decision to dismiss the case prevents an immediate ruling on the law's constitutionality, potentially delaying a definitive Supreme Court decision on the matter.