A U.S. appeals court is reviewing the legality of the federal government’s recent use of a centuries-old wartime law to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliations. The case, heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, centers on whether the administration overstepped its authority by invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify swift removals without due process.
The law, originally passed to deal with threats from foreign nations during armed conflict, was used to deport 238 Venezuelan nationals alleged to be connected to a criminal group known as Tren de Aragua. The individuals were flown to a high-security prison in El Salvador shortly after a presidential proclamation labeled them a threat to national security.
During the two-hour hearing, tensions ran high as judges pressed government attorneys on the use of wartime powers in a non-war context. One judge drew a stark historical comparison, suggesting that even during World War II, individuals labeled as threats received more legal safeguards than the Venezuelan deportees.
The controversy began earlier this month when a federal court issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deportations. That decision followed claims by several migrants that they had been wrongly identified as gang members and were denied any opportunity to contest their removal. A number of the individuals had no known criminal records in the U.S., raising further concerns about the accuracy of the government’s vetting process.
Despite the court’s order, flights carrying deportees had already departed. Federal officials argued it was too late to reverse course, saying the planes had reached international airspace by the time the order was issued. The court, however, remained unconvinced and insisted on reviewing whether the government had violated the terms of the restraining order.
The administration defended its actions by stating that all individuals deported were thoroughly screened and verified as members of a transnational criminal organization. Officials maintained that the use of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful under the national security framework and fell within the executive branch’s authority to manage foreign threats.
Legal representatives for the government also pushed back on comparisons to past abuses, calling them exaggerated and inappropriate. However, members of the judicial panel remained skeptical, raising concerns about precedent, due process, and the potential for wrongful removals based on limited or unverified intelligence.
Immigration advocates and human rights groups have condemned the move, calling it both unlawful and inhumane. They argue that mass removals without individualized assessments violate core constitutional protections and international norms, particularly when targeting individuals from countries experiencing humanitarian crises.
The court has yet to issue a final decision, but the outcome could have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement and the limits of executive power. In the meantime, further deportations under the proclamation have been paused, though officials have indicated they may continue removals through standard immigration channels.
The case continues to highlight growing tensions between the federal judiciary and the executive branch over immigration policy, especially in situations involving national security justifications. As legal proceedings unfold, the courts are expected to determine whether the government acted within its authority – or crossed a line in bypassing the usual legal safeguards that protect individuals facing removal from U.S. soil.
