In a controversial move, the Trump administration has invoked a rarely used wartime law to fast-track the deportation of undocumented migrants linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law originally designed for wartime scenarios, has only been used three times in U.S. history—all during periods of war.
The administration argues that gang members have “unlawfully infiltrated the United States” and are engaging in “irregular warfare and hostile actions.” However, legal experts warn the move could face serious constitutional challenges in court.
On Saturday, March 16, 2025, the White House issued a proclamation justifying the use of the Alien Enemies Act by citing its recent designation of Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization.
The administration claims the gang poses a serious national security threat, warranting immediate arrests, detentions, and removals. Critics, however, argue that the law was never intended for use against criminal organizations and is designed for times of war or direct foreign invasion. The use of this 18th-century law for modern immigration enforcement has sparked intense debate over the limits of presidential power.
Legal challenges swiftly followed. Just hours before the order took effect, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, halting the deportation of some undocumented immigrants affected by the measure.
The ruling came after lawsuits were filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, arguing that criminal activity does not meet the legal definition of an invasion—a requirement for invoking the Alien Enemies Act. The temporary order currently applies only to the individuals involved in the lawsuit, but a broader hearing is scheduled to determine if the restriction should be expanded.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 has a controversial past. Historically, it has only been used during World War I and World War II, when the U.S. government detained and expelled immigrants from Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italy, and Japan. The law also played a key role in the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, a policy that has since been widely condemned.
By applying the law in a non-wartime context, the Trump administration has raised alarm among civil rights groups, who fear it could set a dangerous precedent for immigration enforcement.
Following the judge’s ruling, the Department of Justice immediately filed an appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the restraining order.
The case is now set for a high-stakes legal battle that could determine the future scope of presidential power in immigration enforcement. If the courts uphold Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, it could dramatically expand executive authority over deportations, allowing the government to bypass standard legal procedures. However, if the courts strike it down, it would serve as a major legal rebuke to the administration’s aggressive immigration policies.
This case could reshape U.S. immigration policy for years to come. If upheld, it could pave the way for future administrations to use wartime laws to target specific migrant groups under the guise of national security. Critics warn this could erode due process rights and create a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.
On the other hand, if courts rule against Trump’s order, it could set clear legal limits on how far a president can go in using wartime powers for domestic immigration enforcement. With millions of undocumented immigrants watching closely, the outcome of this case will have far-reaching consequences.
