World Peace

What is current with Trump, the courts and Alien Enemies Act?

GoogleAI Mode: “As of November 2025, federal courts have consistently ruled against the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) during peacetime to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. The current situation involves ongoing appeals, with the issue likely to return to the Supreme Court for a final decision. 

Key Developments

Appeals Court Rulings: In September 2025, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the Trump administration’s use of the AEA for expedited deportation of Venezuelan immigrants, stating the 18th-century wartime act is not applicable for removing alleged gang members during peacetime. The court determined that “mass immigration” does not constitute an “armed, organized force” or an “invasion” under the AEA.

Lower Court Injunctions: Before the Fifth Circuit’s decision, federal district judges in Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado had issued injunctions to stop the use of the AEA for these deportations within their jurisdictions.

Supreme Court Involvement: In April 2025, the Supreme Court addressed procedural aspects, ruling that migrant detainees are entitled to appeal their removal orders before deportation under the AEA, but did not prevent its use at that time. The case was returned to the Fifth Circuit for a substantive review and is expected to go back to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

Contempt Proceedings: There have been legal discussions and an appeals court decision concerning contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials for allegedly not complying with a D.C. District Court judge’s order to stop an early deportation flight under the AEA in March 2025. A federal judge found “probable cause” for contempt, and this matter is back with the district court for potential action.

Arguments: The main legal challenge, led by groups such as the ACLU, centers on whether the President can declare a “predatory incursion” and use a wartime law in peacetime, which courts have so far rejected. 

Lower and appeals courts currently agree that invoking the AEA for these immigration enforcement actions is unlawful, likely leading to a decisive ruling by the Supreme Court.”

On a scale of 1 out 5 with 5 being complete rejection, how likely is the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s use of the AEA?

GoogleAI Mode: “Based on recent court rulings and expert analysis, the likelihood of the Supreme Court completely rejecting the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for peacetime deportations is a 4 out of 5 (where 5 is complete rejection). 

Rationale for this rating

Uniform Lower Court Opposition: Federal district and appeals courts across the country have almost uniformly rejected the administration’s claims that an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” is occurring that would justify invoking the AEA. This emerging consensus among lower courts increases the odds of the Supreme Court following suit on the merits of the case.

Text and History of the Law: Legal analysts argue that the text and history of the 1798 law clearly indicate it is a wartime measure, only applicable to citizens of a country with which the U.S. is at war or is under military invasion by an organized armed force. Courts have ruled that mass immigration, even of alleged gang members, does not meet this definition.

Due Process Concerns: The Supreme Court has already signaled skepticism about the administration’s methods, with all nine justices agreeing that individuals must be given due process and a meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal under the AEA, an important check on executive authority. The Court has issued multiple orders to ensure these protections are met, indicating a concern for individual rights in this context.

Procedural vs. Substantive Rulings: While the Supreme Court initially allowed the administration to continue using the AEA in procedural rulings (lifting some injunctions), it did so to allow lower courts to fully consider the substantive legal issues, not as an endorsement of the law’s applicability. The recent Fifth Circuit ruling was the first by an appeals court on the core question of the law’s use in peacetime, and it rejected the administration’s position.

Major Questions Doctrine: Some legal experts suggest the “major questions doctrine” – which requires Congress to speak clearly when authorizing the executive to make decisions of “vast economic and political significance” – adds further weight to the argument that the administration’s interpretation is wrong. 

The case is expected to return to the Supreme Court soon for a final decision on the merits, and the strong consensus against the Trump administration’s position in the lower courts makes a full rejection highly likely.”

It is true that the Alien Enemies Act requires a link between those deported & the Venezuelan government in order to apply?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, a link between those being targeted for deportation and a foreign government is a central legal requirement and point of contention regarding the use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). 

The AEA is a wartime statute that allows the President to apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects” of a “hostile nation or government” during a declared war or an “invasion or predatory incursion” by that government. 

When the Trump administration invoked the AEA against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), it claimed the gang was conducting hostile actions “at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela” and that the gang itself was functioning as a “hybrid criminal state”. This alleged link to the Venezuelan government was the administration’s legal justification for using the Act. 

However, federal courts have consistently ruled against the use of the AEA in this context, finding the administration’s arguments insufficient: 

Lack of Declared War: The U.S. is not in a declared war with Venezuela.

“No Invasion”: Judges have ruled that migration or gang activity does not constitute an “invasion or predatory incursion” as defined by a wartime statute.

Disputed Government Link: U.S. intelligence assessments reportedly indicated that most intelligence agencies did not believe TdA was coordinating with the Venezuelan government, undermining the administration’s core claim. 

Ultimately, courts determined that the administration’s use of the AEA was unlawful and have blocked further deportations under this act, requiring that any deportations must follow standard immigration procedures which include due process rights for migrants.”

What are other ways the Trump administration tried to impact immigration?

GoogleAI Mode: “Beyond the widely discussed border wall, the Trump administration attempted to impact immigration through hundreds of executive actions and policy changes that restricted both illegal and legal immigration pathways, including: 

“Zero Tolerance” and Family Separation: The administration implemented a “zero tolerance” policy in 2018 that criminally prosecuted all adults who crossed the border without authorization, including asylum seekers. This led to the systematic separation of thousands of children from their parents, as children could not be held in federal jails with their prosecuted parents. There was often no system in place to track or reunite the families, leading to long-term separations for many.

“Remain in Mexico” Policy: Officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), this policy required asylum seekers arriving at the southern border to wait in Mexico for their U.S. immigration court hearings, rather than being released into the U.S. interior. This left tens of thousands of migrants in dangerous Mexican border cities, vulnerable to violence and with limited access to legal counsel.

Expansion of Expedited Removal: The administration vastly expanded the scope of expedited removal, a process that allows immigration agents to deport individuals without a formal court hearing. This authority was extended nationwide to target undocumented immigrants who had been in the country for up to two years, significantly broadening the number of people subject to rapid deportation without judicial review.

Travel Bans: The administration issued several versions of executive orders that banned or severely restricted entry for nationals from several Muslim-majority and African countries. These bans were challenged in court but the third version was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.

Restrictions on Asylum: The administration implemented numerous changes to drastically limit who could qualify for asylum, including a “transit ban” that denied asylum to anyone who traveled through a third country to reach the U.S. border without first seeking protection there. It also sought to end asylum for individuals fleeing gang or domestic violence.

“Public Charge” Rule Expansion: The Department of Homeland Security finalized a rule that made it harder for low-income immigrants to obtain legal permanent resident status (green cards). The expanded “public charge” definition considered the use of a wider range of non-cash government benefits, such as food assistance and public housing, as a reason for denial, prompting many eligible immigrants to forgo necessary aid.

Efforts to End DACA and TPS: The administration sought to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which provides protection from deportation and work authorization for certain young people who came to the U.S. as children. It also moved to cancel Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for immigrants from several countries experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters.

Increased Interior Enforcement: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were given broader authority to make arrests in “sensitive locations” like schools, churches, and courthouses, which had previously been avoided. The administration also sought to penalize “sanctuary cities” by withholding federal funding and increased cooperation with local law enforcement through programs like 287(g) agreements.

Reduction in Legal Immigration/Refugees: The administration drastically reduced the annual cap on refugee admissions to historically low levels and proposed the RAISE Act to cut overall legal immigration by 50% through restrictions on family-based immigration and the diversity visa lottery.”

Explain: These bans were challenged in court but the third version was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.

GoogleAI Mode: “The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) upheld the third, revised version of the Trump administration’s travel ban by concluding that the President had lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him by Congress on immigration matters. 

The key legal reasoning was:

Broad Presidential Authority: The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, focused on Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which grants the President authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” when it is found to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States”. Roberts found that this statute “exudes deference to the President in every clause.”

National Security Justification: The Court determined that the third version of the ban was “expressly premised on legitimate purposes” related to national security concerns and that countries on the list failed to meet U.S. standards for information-sharing and identity management. The administration had presented a detailed, agency-driven review process for each country, rather than an arbitrary ban, which helped it survive judicial scrutiny.

Facially Neutral Policy: The Court chose to look at the text of the proclamation itself, which was neutral on its face, rather than President Trump’s campaign statements about a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. The majority applied a rational basis review, a standard that requires only that the government’s policy be plausibly related to a legitimate government interest, and found the national security justification sufficient.

No Establishment Clause Violation: The Court held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on their claim that the ban violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (prohibiting the government from favoring one religion over another) because the policy had a sufficient, independent national security justification. 

In a forceful dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that the majority had ignored clear evidence of anti-Muslim bias and essentially replaced one “gravely wrong” decision with another, drawing parallels to the Korematsu v. United States decision that upheld Japanese-American internment during World War II. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Any Supreme Court justices known for their stance on executive power in immigration cases?

GoogleAI Mode: “Supreme Court justices’ stances on executive power in immigration cases generally align with their broader judicial philosophies, which can be seen in their opinions. There isn’t a single justice with one universal stance, as positions can shift depending on whether the executive action aligns with or oversteps congressional authority or due process rights. 

Key justices and their general approaches include:

Justices Favoring Broader Executive Power (Judicial Conservatives) 

Chief Justice John Roberts: In cases like Trump v. Hawaii (the travel ban case), Roberts has favored a broad understanding of the President’s authority in the context of national security and international affairs, criticizing a “cramped” view of presidential power. However, he has at times joined the liberal wing on due process issues, suggesting a nuanced, case-by-case approach.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh: Kavanaugh tends to emphasize the federal government’s duty to enforce the immigration laws as written by Congress and has indicated that the judiciary should not set immigration policy or enforcement priorities, which provides significant deference to the executive branch.

Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas: These justices generally take a more conservative approach, often upholding robust executive actions and emphasizing that noncitizens do not necessarily have the same due process rights as citizens in all immigration contexts. 

Justices Favoring Limits on Executive Power/Due Process Protections (Judicial Liberals)

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: A vocal dissenter in many cases where the conservative majority sided with the government, Sotomayor consistently argues for robust due process rights for immigrants and has criticized the executive branch’s “gamesmanship” in subverting the judicial process. She has penned opinions that allow for judicial review of certain agency decisions and has highlighted concerns about potential racial profiling in enforcement actions.

Justice Elena Kagan: Kagan generally aligns with the liberal perspective, focusing on statutory interpretation and due process. In a 2018 case, she wrote the majority opinion that struck down a vague deportation law, indicating a preference for clear laws that limit arbitrary enforcement by the executive branch.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: Justice Jackson has also expressed strong views on the limits of executive power, particularly when it might threaten the rule of law or bypass the Constitution, warning against an “imperial Executive” in one dissent. 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decisions in this area often balance the judiciary’s role with the “plenary power” doctrine, which historically grants significant deference to the political branches (Congress and the Executive) in immigration matters.”