Federal appeals court says Trump unlawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act for deportations

[W_Heisenberg]

News:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/02/politics/appeals-court-ruling-trump-alien-enemies-act-deportations-unlawful

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday said President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members is unlawful and blocked its use in several southern states, issuing another blow to Trump’s invocation of the 18th century law.

The Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 ruling that Trump cannot move forward with using the sweeping wartime authority for deportations in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The president has not leaned on the 1798 law for removals since mid-March, when his invocation of it sparked the first in a series of legal challenges.

Tuesday’s ruling is notable because it’s likely the vehicle through which the issue will reach the Supreme Court for the justices to potentially review Trump’s use of the law in full.

The Fifth Circuit’s opinion, penned by Judge Leslie Southwick and joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, concluded that a “predatory incursion” by members of the gang, Tren de Aragua, had not occurred, as Trump claimed as a reason for invoking the act.

--

Key points:

• The AEA was improperly invoked, because there was neither an “invasion” nor a “predatory incursion” by a foreign government or military force.
  
  
• The panel also held that the seven days’ notice provided by the administration was sufficient from a procedural due process perspective.
  
  
• The court granted a preliminary injunction, halting further deportations under the AEA

--

Majority

Southwich (George W. Bush)
Ramirez (Biden)

Dissent

Oldham (Trump)

--

Articles providing more analysis:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/03/fifth-circuit-ruling-trump-alien-enemies-00541115

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/09/03/panel-rejects-trump-deportations-venezuela/

 

[Loulit01]

The Trump judge dissented? Shocking!

BTW, the 5th Circuit covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

 

[Peacenik]

Trump never in his life had any concern for the law.

He sees a law and immediately begins look for a way around it.

 

[Loulit01]

Trump never in his life had any concern for the law.

He sees a law and immediately begins look for a way around it.

Laws are annoying suggestions for Trump.

Constitutional clauses are 'phony' if he disagrees.

“You people with this phony Emoluments Clause,” he said.

'Phony.' Donald Trump mocks 'emoluments' clause of U.S. Constitution that bans foreign gifts

President Donald Trump slams Constitution's “phony” Emoulments clause barring federal office holders from accepting gifts from foreign governments.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Ikari]

Trump doesn't care about Constitution or Law, it's his way or the highway.

 

[Lutherf]

185 pages for the court to say that Trump has no right to invoke the AEA unless some judge says he can. FFS, we may as well not bother electing presidents and just put judges in charge of everything.

We stress that our holding here is based on the current record, which
is undeveloped. There has been no fact-finding in this case, though affidavits
have been filed setting out different affiants’ views that seven days is
insufficient. A more developed record may demonstrate an actual success on
the merits. The district court on remand should take evidence and make
findings as to what is a sufficient timeframe.
At this early stage of the proceedings, we decline to require more than
the Government’s updated notice procedure.

That's the culmination of their finding; in effect, we didn't really look at any facts but decided anyway.

 

[Loulit01]

185 pages for the court to say that Trump has no right to invoke the AEA unless some judge says he can. FFS, we may as well not bother electing presidents and just put judges in charge of everything.


That's the culmination of their finding; in effect, we didn't really look at any facts but decided anyway.

Checks and balances are such a pain in the ass!

 

[Lutherf]

Checks and balances are such a pain in the ass!

This decision was no such thing.

The AEA is an authority given specifically to the president and there is no requirement that invoking the act be consented to by congress or by the judiciary. As such, the courts have no authority whatsoever to determine whether it was enacted lawfully or not. If there is to be a check on the act then that check is with congress, not the judiciary. This decision is an absurd overreach of judicial authority.

 

[Pyrite]

News:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/02/politics/appeals-court-ruling-trump-alien-enemies-act-deportations-unlawful

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday said President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members is unlawful and blocked its use in several southern states, issuing another blow to Trump’s invocation of the 18th century law.

The Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 ruling that Trump cannot move forward with using the sweeping wartime authority for deportations in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The president has not leaned on the 1798 law for removals since mid-March, when his invocation of it sparked the first in a series of legal challenges.

Tuesday’s ruling is notable because it’s likely the vehicle through which the issue will reach the Supreme Court for the justices to potentially review Trump’s use of the law in full.

The Fifth Circuit’s opinion, penned by Judge Leslie Southwick and joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, concluded that a “predatory incursion” by members of the gang, Tren de Aragua, had not occurred, as Trump claimed as a reason for invoking the act.

--

Key points:

• The AEA was improperly invoked, because there was neither an “invasion” nor a “predatory incursion” by a foreign government or military force.
  
  
• The panel also held that the seven days’ notice provided by the administration was sufficient from a procedural due process perspective.
  
  
• The court granted a preliminary injunction, halting further deportations under the AEA

--

Majority

Southwich (George W. Bush)
Ramirez (Biden)

Dissent

Oldham (Trump)

--

Articles providing more analysis:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/03/fifth-circuit-ruling-trump-alien-enemies-00541115

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/09/03/panel-rejects-trump-deportations-venezuela/

Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Venezuelans

The case appears set to return to the Supreme Court in a decisive battle over President Trump’s use of the 18th-century law to deport migrants.

www.nytimes.com

by Alan Feuer

A federal appeals court late Tuesday rejected President Trump’s attempts to use an 18th-century wartime law to deport immigrants he has accused of belonging to a violent Venezuelan street gang.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, was the first time that federal appellate judges had weighed in on the substantive question of whether Mr. Trump had properly invoked the law, the Alien Enemies Act, as part of his aggressive deportation agenda. While the ruling by a divided three-judge panel of one of the most conservative courts in the country was a defeat for the administration, the issue was still likely to be heard by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Trump had made the Alien Enemies Act, which was passed in 1798, the centerpiece of his earliest efforts to summarily deport a group of Venezuelan immigrants he claimed were members of the street gang Tren de Aragua. In March, he issued a presidential proclamation that drew on the law’s sweeping powers to round up and expel members of a hostile nation in times of declared war or during an invasion or predatory incursion.

But the appellate panel, in a 2-to-1 decision, rejected his assertions that the American homeland was in fact under invasion by Tren de Aragua, rebuffing the idea that immigration, even at a large scale, was synonymous with a military breach of U.S. borders.

“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt or to otherwise harm the United States,” Judge Leslie H. Southwick wrote for the panel’s majority. “There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces.”

That finding could have legal and political implications given that Mr. Trump has used claims that immigrants are invading the United States not only to justify his use of extraordinary laws like the Alien Enemies Act but also to devise a broader anti-immigration narrative....

 

[Pyrite]

This decision was no such thing.

The AEA is an authority given specifically to the president and there is no requirement that invoking the act be consented to by congress or by the judiciary. As such, the courts have no authority whatsoever to determine whether it was enacted lawfully or not. If there is to be a check on the act then that check is with congress, not the judiciary. This decision is an absurd overreach of judicial authority.

Post #8


So far as I know, there is no Constitutional stipulation that laws must include a "requirement that invoking the act be consent to by Congress or by the judiciary" that prevents an Administration from being sued in Federal Court over its use of a particular law.

 

[Lutherf]

Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Venezuelans

The case appears set to return to the Supreme Court in a decisive battle over President Trump’s use of the 18th-century law to deport migrants.

www.nytimes.com

by Alan Feuer

A federal appeals court late Tuesday rejected President Trump’s attempts to use an 18th-century wartime law to deport immigrants he has accused of belonging to a violent Venezuelan street gang.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, was the first time that federal appellate judges had weighed in on the substantive question of whether Mr. Trump had properly invoked the law, the Alien Enemies Act, as part of his aggressive deportation agenda. While the ruling by a divided three-judge panel of one of the most conservative courts in the country was a defeat for the administration, the issue was still likely to be heard by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Trump had made the Alien Enemies Act, which was passed in 1798, the centerpiece of his earliest efforts to summarily deport a group of Venezuelan immigrants he claimed were members of the street gang Tren de Aragua. In March, he issued a presidential proclamation that drew on the law’s sweeping powers to round up and expel members of a hostile nation in times of declared war or during an invasion or predatory incursion.

But the appellate panel, in a 2-to-1 decision, rejected his assertions that the American homeland was in fact under invasion by Tren de Aragua, rebuffing the idea that immigration, even at a large scale, was synonymous with a military breach of U.S. borders.

“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt or to otherwise harm the United States,” Judge Leslie H. Southwick wrote for the panel’s majority. “There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces.”

That finding could have legal and political implications given that Mr. Trump has used claims that immigrants are invading the United States not only to justify his use of extraordinary laws like the Alien Enemies Act but also to devise a broader anti-immigration narrative....

This decision is going to go down in flames. The court has ZERO jurisdiction over whether the invocation of the AEA is lawful or not. It is lawful as long as the president is the one that makes the invocation and congress, not the judiciary, would be the authority that decides what to do about it if they hate the idea.

 

[Lutherf]

So far as I know, there is no Constitutional stipulation that laws must include a "requirement that invoking the act be consent to by Congress or by the judiciary" in order for the Administration to be sued in Federal Court over its use of a particular law.

One can sue all they like but no court anywhere, including SCOTUS, has jurisdiction over whether the invocation is "lawful" or not.

 

[Pyrite]

One can sue all they like but no court anywhere, including SCOTUS, has jurisdiction over whether the invocation is "lawful" or not.

I did not say "lawful" in Post #10.

READ my posts and stick to what is written. Your inferences are not valid.

 

[Pyrite]

This decision is going to go down in flames. The court has ZERO jurisdiction over whether the invocation of the AEA is lawful or not. It is lawful as long as the president is the one that makes the invocation and congress, not the judiciary, would be the authority that decides what to do about it if they hate the idea.

Post #11


So, you are saying the Federal Judiciary has no say whatsoever re trump's invocation of this particular law as legal authority for deporting undocumented migrants.

Right, @Lutherf?

 

[ncguy]

rights love them some dictatorship stuff.

 

[Lutherf]

Post #8


So far as I know, there is no Constitutional stipulation that laws must include a "requirement that invoking the act be consent to by Congress or by the judiciary" that prevents an Administration from being sued in Federal Court over its use of a particular law.

You're missing my point entirely. You can file all the court paperwork you like but if a case like this is brought to a court their response SHOULD BE, "We don't have jurisdiction to hear your complaint".

 

[Pyrite]

You're missing my point entirely. You can file all the court paperwork you like but if a case like this is brought to a court their response SHOULD BE, "We don't have jurisdiction to hear your complaint".

Centuries of jurisprudence and decisions made recently by various courts do NOT agree with your premise that the Federal Judiciary lacks the authority to decide whether a President's invocation of a particular law as the legal underpinning of an action he takes is lawful.

Who told you Federal Courts, including the SCOTUS, lack this power?

 

[Lutherf]

Post #11


So, you are saying the Federal Judiciary has no say whatsoever re trump's invocation of this particular law as legal authority for deporting undocumented migrants.

Right, @Lutherf?

Correct. The courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever to evaluate whether the invocation of the AEA was lawful or not. It's a moot point because the authority to invoke the act lies entirely with the president. If people feel that the invocation was excessive or malicious or otherwise imprudent then the authority to do something about that lies with congress, not the courts.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

You're missing my point entirely. You can file all the court paperwork you like but if a case like this is brought to a court their response SHOULD BE, "We don't have jurisdiction to hear your complaint".

I disagree that the President should have the power to unilaterally invoke the AEA, because I'm not a fascist.

But more importantly, the most conservative Circuit disagrees with you as well.

 

[Pyrite]

This decision is going to go down in flames. The court has ZERO jurisdiction over whether the invocation of the AEA is lawful or not. It is lawful as long as the president is the one that makes the invocation and congress, not the judiciary, would be the authority that decides what to do about it if they hate the idea.

Post #11

One can sue all they like but no court anywhere, including SCOTUS, has jurisdiction over whether the invocation is "lawful" or not.

Post #12


`````````````````````````````````````

Per @Lutherf, all a President has to do is cite a law - ANY law, whether it applies in any way or not - as the legal underpinning for an action taken by the President, and.....no court in the land has the authority to decide whether or not the President's invocation of that law was valid/lawful.

 

[Ikari]

185 pages for the court to say that Trump has no right to invoke the AEA unless some judge says he can. FFS, we may as well not bother electing presidents and just put judges in charge of everything.


That's the culmination of their finding; in effect, we didn't really look at any facts but decided anyway.

Oh no! Checks and balances getting in the way of your Dear Leader?

There are requirements to evoke the AEA, Trump hasn't met them. Trump cannot arbitrarily use the AEA for anything he wants, the conditions for using it must be met first. And if he tries to use it without meeting those conditions, then the People have the right to redress government, which we do through the courts.

Too bad, so sad.

 

[Pyrite]

I disagree that the President should have the power to unilaterally invoke the AEA, because I'm not a fascist.

But more importantly, the most conservative Circuit disagrees with you as well.

Post #19


"But, more importantly, the most conservative Circuit disagrees with you as well."

Sad to say, I doubt this point will have any effect on @Lutherf. He has found what he wants to believe, and he's going to stick with it.

 

[Pyrite]

This decision is going to go down in flames. The court has ZERO jurisdiction over whether the invocation of the AEA is lawful or not. It is lawful as long as the president is the one that makes the invocation and congress, not the judiciary, would be the authority that decides what to do about it if they hate the idea.

Post #11

One can sue all they like but no court anywhere, including SCOTUS, has jurisdiction over whether the invocation is "lawful" or not.

Post #12

`````````````````

Who told you this, @Lutherf?

 

[Lutherf]

Centuries of jurisprudence and decisions made recently by various courts do NOT agree with your premise that the Federal Judiciary lacks the authority to decide whether a President's invocation of a particular law as the legal underpinning of an action he takes is lawful.

Who told you Federal Courts, including the SCOTUS, lack this power?

Well, when the law, created by congress, states that the president has a certain exclusive authority then there's really nothing to judge. If one believes that the delegated authority has been abused or misused then CONGRESS, not the courts, have jurisdiction to seek a remedy. What you're trying to put forward here is akin to a situation where the court appoints a guardian for a child because the parents are incapable of raising him or her and then the parents try to make a decision for the kid. They don't have authority. In this case congress gave a specific authority to the president and only congress has the right (jurisdiction) to modify or nullify that authority.

 

[Lutherf]

Oh no! Checks and balances getting in the way of your Dear Leader?

There are requirements to evoke the AEA, Trump hasn't met them. Trump cannot arbitrarily use the AEA for anything he wants, the conditions for using it must be met first. And if he tries to use it without meeting those conditions, then the People have the right to redress government, which we do through the courts.

Too bad, so sad.

As I have said repeatedly, there IS a check on the president with regard to the AEA but that check is through congress, not the courts.