A federal judge on Saturday temporarily blocked the deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, halting President Donald Trump’s latest immigration crackdown under an obscure wartime law. The decision marks the first legal challenge to Trump’s controversial invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a move that has sparked heated debate over presidential authority and civil liberties.
Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order for 14 days, preventing immediate expulsions under the presidential proclamation. In his ruling, Boasberg stated that the law “does not provide a basis for the president’s proclamation given that the terms invasion, predatory incursion really relate to hostile acts perpetrated by any nation and commensurate to war.” The decision throws into question Trump’s unprecedented use of the statute, which historically has been employed only during wartime.
Just hours before the ruling, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act against Tren de Aragua, a violent transnational gang that has been linked to organized crime, contract killings, extortion, and human trafficking. The administration’s justification for the move was based on claims that the gang was waging “irregular warfare” against the United States and deliberately destabilizing the nation.
“The United States is facing an invasion from a criminal organization that has made it clear their goal is to terrorize our communities,” Trump stated in his proclamation, arguing that swift deportation of suspected gang members was necessary to protect national security. The order applies to all Venezuelan citizens aged 14 or older who are identified as gang members and are within U.S. borders but not naturalized or lawful permanent residents.
Critics argue that Trump’s use of the law is a drastic overreach. The Alien Enemies Act, which was originally passed in 1798, was used to justify the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals during World War II. However, it has never been applied to immigrants from a country with which the United States is not at war.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quickly challenged the order in court, arguing that it bypassed due process and violated fundamental rights. Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney who argued for the temporary restraining order, condemned Trump’s decision as “as lawless as anything the Trump administration has done.”
“We are on very dangerous ground when the administration is going to try to use wartime authority, when we’re at peace, for immigration purposes or any other non-military purpose,” Gelernt said in an interview.
Boasberg’s ruling came just hours after the ACLU, along with other immigration advocacy groups, filed lawsuits on behalf of five Venezuelan migrants. The plaintiffs, who are seeking asylum, were allegedly misidentified as members of Tren de Aragua. The ACLU argued that the government had provided no evidence to justify their deportations under the new order.
The judge’s ruling effectively halts the administration’s efforts for now. However, the government has already appealed the decision, setting the stage for a legal battle that could reach the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Pam Bondi blasted Boasberg’s ruling, accusing him of prioritizing the interests of criminals over American citizens.
“This order disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk,” Bondi said in a statement. “Judge Boasberg has sided with Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans.”
Republican lawmakers echoed Bondi’s frustration, arguing that the judge’s ruling undermined Trump’s ability to protect the country from foreign criminal threats. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) called the decision “judicial overreach” and warned that it would embolden criminal organizations.
On the other side, civil rights groups and Democratic leaders denounced Trump’s order as a dangerous expansion of executive power.
“Invoking the Alien Enemies Act, an extraordinary wartime power with a shameful history, to arbitrarily detain and deport immigrants is bigoted, dangerous, and profoundly unjust,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
William Vasquez, an immigration lawyer in North Carolina, pointed out that Trump’s order represents the first time the act “has been applied against migrants from a country with which the U.S. is not at war.”
Democratic lawmakers warned that Trump’s move could set a dangerous precedent. “If we allow this president to use wartime powers to deport immigrants based on broad, unproven accusations, what stops him from using the same power against political dissidents or minority groups?” said Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA).
The Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has been a frequent talking point in Trump’s campaign speeches as he seeks to link illegal immigration to rising crime rates. The gang, which originated in Venezuelan prisons, has spread across Latin America and is known for engaging in drug trafficking, human smuggling, and violent crimes.
In February, the Trump administration designated Tren de Aragua, along with the Sinaloa Cartel and six other criminal groups, as global terrorist organizations. Saturday’s presidential directive claimed that the gang was using mass illegal migration as a strategy to further its criminal activities in the United States.
Despite these claims, studies have consistently shown that immigrants do not commit crimes at higher rates than native-born Americans. A 2020 report from the Cato Institute found that both legal and undocumented immigrants have lower criminal conviction rates than U.S.-born citizens.
Trump’s return to the White House on January 20 marked the beginning of a renewed push for aggressive immigration enforcement. He has vowed to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and has taken steps to expand border security and interior enforcement.
His administration has deployed additional troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, reassigned federal agents to immigration enforcement, and directed agencies to prioritize the arrest of individuals with criminal records. However, these efforts have been hampered by a backlog in immigration courts and limited detention space.
Despite his hardline rhetoric, Trump’s deportation numbers so far have not reached the levels seen under his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden. Biden, who faced record levels of border crossings, deported a significant number of recent arrivals in an effort to manage the crisis.
The legal battle over Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act is far from over. With the administration appealing Boasberg’s ruling, the case is likely to move to higher courts, potentially setting up a major Supreme Court showdown.
The outcome of this fight could have far-reaching consequences not only for immigration policy but also for the scope of presidential power. If the courts uphold Trump’s order, it could open the door for future presidents to use wartime authority in non-military contexts.
The temporary restraining order ensures that the five Venezuelan plaintiffs in the ACLU’s lawsuit cannot be deported under the proclamation. But the broader fight over Trump’s immigration policies—and his willingness to invoke rarely used legal powers—will continue to shape the national conversation in the coming weeks.
With immigration remaining a defining issue in the Trump presidency, both sides are gearing up for a fierce battle over the future of U.S. immigration law and executive power.
