Fifth Circuit Court Denies Challenge to Trump’s Use of Alien Enemy Act

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has, on Thursday, turned down a challenge against President Donald Trump’s application of the Alien Enemy Act to deport individuals supposedly linked to Torren de Aragua. This ruling leaves the legality of the president’s use of this old law still in question.

This New Orleans-based court categorized the case as moot since the three Venezuelan plaintiffs, identified by the regime as members of Torren de Aragua, had already been deported from the U.S. through other immigration processes.

The Alien Enemies Act has its roots deep in history, existing long before Trump’s administration, although it was used a last time by President Harry Truman in 1946. Essentially, the law empowers the president to detain and deport certain non-citizens from nations considered hostile during specific wartime or invasion scenarios.

The Trump administration has contended that the activities of the Torren de Aragua gang fit the description of an “invasion or predatory intrusion” as per the law’s provisions. This approach is part of broader immigration policies aimed at expediting the removal of suspected gang affiliates.

The Supreme Court had earlier paused the government’s ability to deport detainees linked to this law while the case remained active. However, it did not decide whether Trump had correctly invoked the law, returning the case to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration.

Bryce Poole, a senior legal fellow with American Freedom Advancement, noted that the ruling presents a mixed outcome for the Trump administration. He mentioned, “The Fifth Circuit’s decision in WMM v. Trump is a step forward, but also a step sideways. Last year’s AARP v. Trump case resulted in the Supreme Court blocking deportations without addressing the legality of Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemy Act.”

American Freedom Advancement, where Poole is affiliated, is a conservative policy advocacy group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence.

He continued, “It’s a forward step because it overrides a past ruling deeming Trump’s actions illegal, keeping the president’s authority under the AEA intact. Yet, it sidesteps core merits of the case, meaning the legality of the AEA remains a live issue likely destined for a Supreme Court ruling. Perhaps there will even be a certification class, like JAV v. Trump, making mootness irrelevant.”

On a concurring note, two justices conveyed their thoughts that the president’s application of the law was fitting, with Justice James Ho articulating his belief that the matter should indeed be handled by the Supreme Court. He stated, “We should address the merits issues before us by the Supreme Court and affirm the president’s actions under the Alien Enemy Act and the Due Process Clause.”

Ho, also appointed by Trump, pointed out that courts are expected to defer to the president’s assessments regarding illegal immigration being treated as an invasion, extending this consideration further to the specific context involving Torren de Aragua.

Meanwhile, Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University, voiced strong dissent against Ho’s viewpoint, arguing that if the president could declare an “invasion” merely by claiming its existence, it would dangerously broaden emergency powers beyond their intended extremes. “This contradicts the AEA’s text which limits its application to genuine circumstances where invasion is present,” he added.

Ultimately, Judge Andrew Oldham, another Trump appointee, concurred with the legal soundness of the president’s use of the Alien Enemy Act. The court, with the agreement of all 17 active Fifth Circuit judges, also rejected an appeal from the plaintiffs’ lawyers to substitute the deported individuals with new plaintiffs.

Despite Trump no longer being in office, the legal resolution surrounding his application of the Alien Enemy Act remains unclear, and the latest court actions are likely to postpone a conclusive ruling from the Supreme Court.