Trump Uses 226-Year-Old Law to Deport Venezuelans — Judges Split

In partnership with

Stay up-to-date with AI

The Rundown is the most trusted AI newsletter in the world, with 1,000,000+ readers and exclusive interviews with AI leaders like Mark Zuckerberg, Demis Hassibis, Mustafa Suleyman, and more.

Their expert research team spends all day learning what’s new in AI and talking with industry experts, then distills the most important developments into one free email every morning.

Plus, complete the quiz after signing up and they’ll recommend the best AI tools, guides, and courses – tailored to your needs.

Sign up to start learning.

⚖️A Forgotten Law Resurfaces

An 18th-century law has become the unlikely cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s aggressive new immigration crackdown — and it's triggering a fierce legal and political battle.

At the heart of the controversy is the Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, which allows the U.S. president to detain or deport nationals from a hostile nation during wartime. Though designed to address foreign espionage during military conflicts, Trump has invoked it to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants, claiming they are members of a violent gang waging “irregular warfare” against the U.S.

This dramatic interpretation of a centuries-old statute has sparked lawsuits, court orders, and condemnation from rights groups and foreign governments alike.

🛂 A Law from the Past, Resurrected

Originally passed during tensions with France, the Alien Enemies Act gives the president authority to remove individuals from countries considered a threat. Its last major use was during World War II, when over 120,000 Japanese Americans were detained in internment camps.

Now, more than 80 years later, the Trump administration is using the act against alleged members of the Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang the White House describes as a transnational criminal organization conducting operations on U.S. soil.

In March, the U.S. deported 261 Venezuelans, with 137 removals justified under the Alien Enemies Act. These deportees were flown to El Salvador and placed in one of the country’s most secure prisons.

🧨 A Legal Minefield

Legal challenges to Trump’s move have come swiftly.

Judges in New York, Colorado, and Texas initially ruled against the administration, questioning the legality of using a wartime statute when the U.S. is not formally at war with Venezuela. Civil rights groups like the ACLU argue the move is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Yet on April 7, the Supreme Court offered a partial green light, allowing deportations to continue only if individuals were given due process — including the right to contest their removal in court.

But the story didn’t end there.

On April 19, the Court intervened again, halting the deportation of several Venezuelans after attorneys said their clients weren’t notified of their rights.

Then on May 1, federal judge Fernando Rodriguez — a Trump appointee — ruled that the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context was unlawful. It marked the first time a federal court deemed the action to be outside the law’s intended scope.

Just 12 days later, another Trump-appointed judge, Stephanie Haines in Pennsylvania, issued a contradictory ruling: Trump can use the law — but must give migrants 21 days’ notice and allow them a chance to challenge deportation.

👩‍⚖️ Critics Warn of Constitutional Overreach

Civil liberties groups say Trump’s use of the act stretches executive power to dangerous new limits.

Elora Mukherjee, director at Columbia Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, warned that the administration is testing the boundaries of the Constitution:

At the Brennan Center for Justice, attorney Katherine Yon Ebright called the act’s use illegal and racially motivated:

🌎 Venezuela Responds

The Venezuelan government denounced Trump’s actions, calling the policy “inhumane” and likening it to historic injustices, including slavery and Nazi-era deportations.

Human rights groups echoed the criticism, warning that the U.S. risks abandoning fundamental legal norms in the name of national security.

📣 Trump Fires Back

Trump has remained defiant.

In his January inaugural address, he pledged to “eliminate all foreign criminal networks” from American soil. On March 15, he formally invoked the Alien Enemies Act, declaring that the Tren de Aragua poses an “invasion-level” threat to the United States.

He’s also attacked judges who ruled against him. When Judge James Boasberg tried to halt deportations in March, the White House claimed his order lacked legal authority and confirmed that the deportations had already happened.

Trump later went on social media and called for Boasberg’s impeachment, labeling him a “grandstander.”

Meanwhile, top aide Stephen Miller suggested the administration may consider suspending habeas corpus — the legal right for detainees to challenge their imprisonment in court — a move that would escalate tensions even further.

⚠️ A Constitutional Flashpoint

Whether the courts ultimately uphold Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act could shape the limits of presidential power for years to come. The legal question is simple, but the stakes are profound: can a law written in 1798 to prepare for foreign invasion be used in 2025 to mass-deport migrants in peacetime?

With rulings split and emotions running high, the fight over this obscure statute has become a defining legal battle of Trump’s second term.