Federal judge halts Trump’s wartime deportation plan under 1798 law

The court intervened, stopping Trump’s deportation plan under the Alien Enemies Act for 14 days.

Listen to article

A US federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to deport Venezuelan nationals under a 227-year-old wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The ruling, issued on Saturday evening, halts deportations for 14 days, after Trump’s proclamation aimed at members of the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua.

On Saturday, President Trump declared that members of the gang, which he accused of conducting “irregular warfare” against the United States, should be deported under the Alien Enemies Act.

This law, designed for wartime, allows the president to detain and remove foreign nationals deemed a threat to national security, without going through the usual immigration proceedings. Trump’s proclamation followed his campaign pledge to use the act to deport individuals he deemed to be a national security risk.

However, US District Judge James Boasberg intervened after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging the use of the 1798 law.

The plaintiffs argued that the act was intended for wartime situations and could not be invoked during peacetime, especially against nationals from a country – Venezuela – with which the US is not at war.

Judge Boasberg agreed, issuing a temporary restraining order on the deportations, citing the historical use of the Alien Enemies Act, which has been invoked only a handful of times in US history. The law has previously been used during World War I and World War II, when the US was at war with specific nations.

The most notorious instance was the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Critics, including civil liberties groups, argue that invoking the law in this context could set a dangerous precedent, allowing the president to bypass immigration laws and deport individuals without due process.

The proclamation specifically targeted Venezuelan nationals in the US who were identified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang. This gang, which is said to have thousands of members, has been involved in drug trafficking, human trafficking, and violent crimes in the Americas.

Trump’s statement described the gang as a foreign force attacking the US, labeling it a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" with "thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States."

While the intention behind Trump’s proclamation was to address national security concerns, civil rights groups argue that the use of the Alien Enemies Act would allow deportations based solely on ancestry, rather than individual actions.

The ACLU and other organizations claimed that the law could be used to deport people without any evidence that they were involved in criminal activity or gang membership.

“The president is attempting to bypass immigration law by using this antiquated wartime law, which doesn’t require proof of wrongdoing or membership in a criminal organization,” said Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. “He’s trying to deport people based on their ancestry, not on any actual evidence of criminal activity.”

In response to the legal challenge, Trump’s administration had insisted that the gang’s violent activities constituted a national emergency, justifying the invocation of the law.

However, Judge Boasberg’s ruling noted that terms like “invasion” and “predatory incursion” in the law traditionally applied to acts of war perpetrated by hostile foreign nations. Since Venezuela is not engaged in a war with the US, the judge ruled that the act likely did not provide a legitimate legal basis for the president’s proclamation.

The case now moves through the legal system, and it could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court, where justices will have to decide whether the Alien Enemies Act can be used in situations that do not involve an official declaration of war. The legal battle is expected to draw attention from both supporters and opponents of Trump’s immigration policies.

This legal fight could galvanise Trump’s supporters, who have long rallied behind his tough stance on illegal immigration. His administration has introduced a series of measures to reduce illegal immigration, including the construction of a border wall and a crackdown on sanctuary cities.

Since taking office, Trump has made clear his commitment to reducing the number of undocumented immigrants in the US and targeting criminal organisations that exploit immigration laws.

However, rights groups, legal experts, and some lawmakers have raised concerns about the broader implications of using a wartime law to address immigration issues.

They argue that it undermines individual rights and could lead to the mass deportation of vulnerable populations, including those who may have sought asylum or legal residency in the US.

The ruling also sparked concerns about the potential impact on US foreign relations, particularly with Venezuela. Critics argue that invoking the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelans could further inflame tensions with the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, already a point of contention between the two countries.

The ruling on Saturday provides temporary relief for the Venezuelan nationals who were targeted under Trump’s proclamation, but the legal battle is far from over.

The case will continue to unfold in the courts, and its outcome could have significant implications for the future of US immigration policy and the balance between national security and civil liberties.