A federal judge issued an emergency order on Saturday, blocking the Trump administration from carrying out deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This ruling came just hours after former President Donald Trump invoked the centuries-old law, claiming the United States was under invasion by a Venezuelan gang and asserting his authority to expel its members.

Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that immediate action was necessary, as the government had already begun transporting migrants—who were deemed newly deportable under Trump’s proclamation—to detention facilities in El Salvador and Honduras. Earlier in the week, El Salvador had agreed to accept up to 300 individuals identified as gang members by the Trump administration.

“I do not believe I can wait any longer and am required to act,” Boasberg stated during an emergency hearing on Saturday evening. His ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward. The judge further ordered that any deportation flights already in transit be turned around, emphasizing that delaying their removal would not harm the government, as the individuals in question remained in custody.

Trump’s Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act

Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime statute, to justify the expedited removal of individuals allegedly associated with the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). The move followed a separate federal court ruling earlier that day, which determined that the law could not be used to deport five Venezuelan migrants.

In his proclamation, Trump declared:

“I find and declare that TdA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.”

The administration argues that by classifying TdA as a hostile force, Trump can exercise sweeping powers to deport individuals suspected of gang affiliations, potentially accelerating his broader crackdown on immigration.

Understanding the Alien Enemies Act of 1798

Originally passed as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts during rising tensions with France, the Alien Enemies Act grants the president the authority to detain, relocate, or deport non-citizens from a nation designated as an enemy of the United States during wartime. However, the law typically requires a formal declaration of war before being enacted—something Trump has not obtained.

Critics warn that invoking this statute could allow the president to bypass standard legal protections for immigrants and non-citizens, raising significant constitutional concerns. The law was last used to justify the internment of Japanese-American civilians during World War II, making its reemergence particularly controversial.

Legal Challenges and Immediate Fallout

Even before Trump formally invoked the law, the ACLU and Democracy Forward had preemptively filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing that the administration’s plan would unfairly designate Venezuelan migrants as gang members without due process.

Judge Boasberg responded by issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the deportation of the five Venezuelans already in custody. He stated that the order was necessary “to preserve the status quo” while the case is reviewed. A broader hearing is scheduled to determine whether the order should be expanded to protect all Venezuelans facing deportation under Trump’s directive.

The Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling, arguing that judicial interference before a presidential order is fully enacted could undermine executive authority.

A Legal Battle with Wide-Reaching Implications

Trump’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act marks an unprecedented application of the law outside of a formally declared war, raising serious legal and political questions. While the administration insists the move is necessary to combat criminal organizations, opponents argue that it sets a dangerous precedent by allowing mass deportations without individualized assessments.

Immigration attorney Ahilan Arulanantham, who filed two emergency petitions to halt deportations, emphasized the gravity of the situation:

“Last night, it appears the government was preparing to deport a number of Venezuelans they had no legal authority to deport.”

As legal challenges unfold, the case is likely to serve as a major test of presidential authority on immigration policy, setting the stage for a broader debate over executive power and civil liberties.