Federal Judge Upholds Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Venezuelan Gang Members
First Major Legal Win for Trump Amid Nationwide Court Battles
In a landmark ruling on Tuesday, a federal judge in Pennsylvania became the first in the nation to back President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport members of Venezuela’s notorious Tren de Aragua criminal syndicate.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee, ruled that the administration’s designation of the gang’s presence as an “incursion” satisfies the legal threshold under the AEA, marking a critical turning point in a deeply contested immigration and national security battle.
“Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will,” Judge Haines wrote in her 43-page decision.
The Ruling: Detention Stands, With Due Process Requirements
While the judge sided with the administration’s authority to invoke the AEA, she added procedural safeguards: detainees must receive 21 days’ notice prior to removal and an opportunity to be heard. All notices must be issued in both English and Spanish, with interpreters provided as needed.
This structured approach offers the Trump administration a judicially approved path forward while still addressing humanitarian and due process concerns raised by critics and civil liberties groups.
A Break from the Judicial Trend
Judge Haines’ ruling is notable as it breaks from a wave of recent federal court decisions rejecting the Trump administration’s legal rationale.
- Judge Fernando Rodriguez (Southern District of Texas) issued a permanent injunction earlier this month, declaring that Trump’s use of the AEA was “unlawful” and limited only to formal wartime scenarios.
- Judge David Briones, a Clinton appointee, ordered the release of two suspected Tren de Aragua members, stating DOJ attorneys failed to establish any “lawful basis” for their detention under AEA guidelines.
- Other judges in New York, Colorado, and South Texas have echoed similar sentiments, issuing rulings that either block or severely restrict the application of the AEA in immigration enforcement.
This legal tug-of-war is quickly shaping into a constitutional showdown over executive authority, immigration control, and national security boundaries.
The Stakes: Immigration, Sovereignty, and Public Safety
Tren de Aragua is widely recognized as one of Latin America’s most dangerous transnational gangs, involved in human trafficking, extortion, and drug smuggling across multiple countries. Homeland Security officials have long warned about the group’s growing footprint within U.S. borders.
President Trump has framed the AEA-based removals as a matter of national survival, accusing sanctuary jurisdictions and activist judges of “sabotaging America’s sovereignty in favor of foreign criminal networks.”
“We are at war—not with a country, but with an invasion of criminal networks enabled by weak borders and corrupt regimes,” Trump said in a recent speech. “The Alien Enemies Act gives us the power to protect the American people. We’re going to use it.”
What Happens Next
The Department of Justice is expected to fast-track appeals in districts where lower courts have blocked deportations. With conflicting federal rulings now on record, legal scholars predict that the Supreme Court may ultimately weigh in, especially if circuit splits emerge.
In the meantime, Judge Haines’ ruling offers the Trump administration a legal beachhead in its broader effort to crack down on illegal immigration using war-era laws—an effort that continues to divide the federal judiciary.
The war over the Alien Enemies Act is far from over. But for now, Trump has his first judicial victory—and the deportation flights may soon resume.