A federal judge has officially blocked the Trump administration from using the Pentagon to sidestep deportation restrictions, striking down an attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act for mass removals. The decision deals a major blow to Trump’s immigration strategy, which has relied on executive power to fast-track deportations without standard legal procedures.
The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Fernandez Rodriguez, directly bars the administration from detaining, transferring, or deporting Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. Trump had argued that the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua constituted an organized invasion, justifying immediate removals under wartime authority. However, the court found no legal basis for this interpretation, ruling that the gang’s activity did not meet the act’s threshold for armed conflict.
The March 15 proclamation was meant to trigger emergency deportations, allowing federal agencies to bypass court hearings and due process protections for suspected gang members. The judge’s ruling dismantles that effort, affirming that national security concerns do not override legal constraints on immigration enforcement.
Trump’s legal team had maintained that the president holds unilateral authority to define an invasion, making the Alien Enemies Act a legitimate tool for responding to cartel violence. Judge Rodriguez rejected this claim, stating that such an interpretation would strip Congress of its ability to regulate immigration law and set a dangerous precedent for executive power expansion.
The ruling’s broader impact could go beyond this case. The decision reinforces judicial oversight over immigration policies, limiting the use of wartime legislation for domestic enforcement. This could shape future legal battles over executive authority and restrict similar measures under any administration.
Trump’s allies have called the ruling judicial overreach, arguing that it weakens national security and ties the hands of law enforcement. The administration is expected to appeal, seeking a reversal in higher courts. Meanwhile, immigration advocates view the decision as a necessary safeguard against unchecked executive power, ensuring that all deportation cases receive proper legal scrutiny.
With the 2025 election cycle approaching, Trump’s immigration policies remain at the forefront of political debate. Whether this ruling holds or gets overturned will determine the scope of executive authority on immigration moving forward.
Sources: