In a new case of an activist judge obstructing Donald Trump, a federal judge has ruled against the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), declaring his attempt to deport Venezuelan migrants as “unlawful.”
See the tweet below!
This decision could set a precedent limiting executive authority, sparking intense debate over the president’s immigration policies.
With Democrat strategies dismantling Trump’s agenda at every turn, could this mark another blow to border enforcement?
On May 1, 2025, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. rejected President Trump’s use of the AEA to rapidly deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador.
The judge emphasized that the AEA, established in 1798, is applicable only during times of war or an armed organized attack.
This ruling extends a block on Trump’s application of the act against migrants detained in South Texas.
The AEA has historically been utilized during notable conflicts like World War Two and the War of 1812.
Trump’s proclamation stretched the act’s language, arguing that these Venezuelans were engaged in “irregular warfare.”
However, Rodriguez ruled that without evidence of “organized, armed force” entering the country, such a stance is untenable.
Rodriguez highlighted that allowing such presidential actions would unilaterally expand executive authority, undermining the judiciary’s constitutional role.
He stated, “Allowing the president to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA and then summarily declare that those conditions exist would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the AEA.”
This underscores the critical checks and balances integral to our nation’s governance.
“The historical record renders clear that the president’s invocation of the AEA is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms,” Rodriguez ruled, cited by BBC News.
This ruling marks the first time a federal judge declared the act’s use in such a context as “unlawful,” with a permanent injunction against utilizing this 18th-century wartime authority during peacetime.
While the ruling applies specifically to AEA-based deportations, it does not interfere with deportations under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Still, the implications are profound, requiring any executive maneuvering under these grounds to endure judicial scrutiny.
The Trump administration’s claim that Tren de Aragua acted as a “hybrid criminal state” on behalf of the Venezuelan government was dismissed due to the lack of substantial evidence.
Should the administration appeal, this could head to the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has previously held firm against immigration overreach.
Critics argue that such judicial interventions weaken our national security, especially at a time when our borders need strict enforcement.
A federal judge rules Trump use of Alien Enemies Act for gangs is ‘unlawful’ https://t.co/jqAxg04Tsz
— The Hill (@thehill) May 1, 2025
