Trump-appointed judge says president’s use of Alien Enemies Act is unlawful in first-of-its-kind ruling

A Donald Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas ruled that the president unlawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act and blocked the administration from quickly deporting some alleged members of a Venezuelan gang.

A Donald Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas ruled that the president unlawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act and blocked the administration from quickly deporting some alleged members of a Venezuelan gang. US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez of the Southern District of Texas said Trump had unlawfully invoked the sweeping 18th century wartime authority to speed up some deportations. His decision means Trump cannot rely on the law to detain or deport any alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua within his district. The ruling is a significant blow to Trump’s decision in March to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, which has faced numerous legal challenges and has been halted by several courts. But Rodriguez’s ruling is the first to conclude that the president exceeded his authority by relying on a law that was intended to be used during times when the US is at war. The Trump administration, Rodriguez wrote, does “not possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country.” “The President cannot summarily declare that a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated an invasion or predatory incursion of the United States, followed by the identification of the alien enemies subject to detention or removal,” the judge wrote. He continued: “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, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope. The law does not support such a position.”