A U.S. appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to reinstate mass deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a centuries-old wartime law, citing a lack of due process.
A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Wednesday to uphold a temporary ban on deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The decision keeps in place an earlier order from District Judge James Boasberg, who halted the administration’s use of the law after the first deportation flights took place without hearings or legal protections.
Controversial Deportations Spark Legal Battle
On March 15, President Donald Trump authorized the removal of two planeloads of Venezuelan migrants, allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, to a high-security prison in El Salvador. The administration invoked the AEA, a law historically used only in wartime, most notably during World War I and II.
Immigration attorneys argue that many deported individuals were wrongly targeted, accused of gang ties based on little more than their tattoos. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other rights groups filed lawsuits challenging the deportations, leading to the court-ordered pause.
Judge Patricia Millett, appointed by former President Barack Obama, and Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, voted to uphold the temporary ban, while Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented.
Millett strongly criticized the administration’s actions, stating that migrants were deported with “zero process, no notice, no hearing, no opportunity to prove they are not members of a gang.” She warned that allowing such deportations without due process could set a dangerous precedent.
Legal and Political Fallout
The ruling is a setback for the Trump administration, which has sought to expand deportations of undocumented migrants. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited the Salvadoran prison where the deported Venezuelans are being held, vowing to work with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele to accelerate deportation efforts.
Meanwhile, Trump has lashed out at Judge Boasberg, even suggesting his impeachment, remarks that drew a rare rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
The case has sparked legal and constitutional concerns, with some experts warning that the administration might attempt to ignore the court’s ruling, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis.
During Monday’s hearing, Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign argued that blocking the deportations “intrudes upon the executive branch’s war and foreign affairs powers.”
Judge Millett pushed back forcefully, declaring, “Nazis got better treatment” under the same wartime law during World War II.
Civil rights groups welcomed the court’s decision, emphasizing that deportation orders must adhere to due process. Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU, said the ruling prevents “hundreds of individuals from being sent to a notorious black-hole prison without any due process whatsoever.”
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman echoed this sentiment, stating, “President Trump is bound by the laws of this nation. He cannot invoke wartime powers when the U.S. is neither at war nor facing an invasion.”
With the legal battle far from over, the case could become a defining moment in Trump’s immigration policies, and a potential flashpoint for the 2025 presidential race.
