President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law from the 18th century, has sparked significant legal controversy. In March, he issued a proclamation aimed at deporting numerous immigrants he claimed were affiliated with a Venezuelan street gang. This act, previously invoked only three times in U.S. history during wartime, raises questions about its application in this context.
For over three months, federal courts have been examining the legality of Trump's actions as he seeks to fulfill his policy goal of mass deportation. A federal appeals court in New Orleans is set to hear arguments on this issue, which may lead to a decisive ruling on the president's interpretation of the law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will review legal arguments previously made in lower courts. This case is poised to be the first to reach the Supreme Court, where it will address whether Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act is lawful.
The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798 amid fears of war with France, grants the president powers to detain and expel individuals from hostile nations, but only during declared wars or invasions. The Trump administration's use of this law against Venezuelan men accused of being part of the Tren de Aragua gang, designated as a terrorist organization, marks a departure from its traditional application.
Trump's administration contends that these individuals pose a military threat due to their alleged ties with the Venezuelan government, equating their presence in the U.S. to an invasion. In contrast, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the Venezuelan men, argues that these claims lack evidence and that mass migration does not constitute an invasion.
Most federal courts have sided with the ACLU, ruling that Trump's invocation of the act was unlawful and that the alleged military threat does not align with factual evidence. However, a couple of courts have supported the administration, arguing for its broad authority in foreign affairs regarding designated terrorist organizations.
The ACLU faces challenges in the Fifth Circuit, known for its conservative leanings. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming oral arguments, the case is expected to advance to the Supreme Court.
The ACLU's case began in April when it filed an emergency lawsuit in Texas after learning of the administration's plans to deport Venezuelans held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility. The ACLU claimed that this action was an attempt to bypass judicial orders from other jurisdictions that restricted similar deportations.
When the district court judge did not act promptly, the ACLU escalated the matter to the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court, arguing that the men faced imminent deportation to El Salvador. The Supreme Court intervened, temporarily halting the deportations and indicating that the government had not provided adequate due process for the Venezuelan men.
Last month, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its stay on deportations and directed the Fifth Circuit to consider the legality of Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, as well as the required notice immigrants should receive prior to expulsion under the law.