In a stunning ruling, Federal Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., appointed by former President Donald Trump, declared that the Trump administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants is unlawful. The decision, issued in Brownsville, Texas, marks the first time a federal judge has explicitly ruled that Trump’s executive order exceeds the scope of the centuries-old law, which is intended for use during declared wars or clear threats of armed invasion. This ruling delivers a significant blow to Trump’s hardline immigration agenda, which has focused on rapidly deporting individuals accused of ties to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
In March 2025, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, claiming that Tren de Aragua, a criminal gang his administration designated as a foreign terrorist organization, was waging an “unconventional war” against the United States. The order facilitated the deportation of over 130 Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador without immigration court hearings. However, Judge Rodriguez, in a 36-page opinion, rejected Trump’s assertion that the gang’s activities constituted an “invasion” under the law’s definition. He argued that there was no evidence of an organized armed group from Venezuela entering the U.S. to seize territory or exert control.
Rodriguez’s ruling not only halts the use of the Alien Enemies Act for Venezuelan deportations in southern Texas but also sets a precedent that could challenge similar actions nationwide. The judge emphasized that the law’s historical use—during conflicts like World War II—required a clear nexus to wartime conditions, which the current situation lacks. He further criticized the administration’s broad application of the law, noting that it risks violating due process by targeting individuals based on nationality rather than evidence of criminal activity.
Immigration advocates hailed the decision as a victory for constitutional protections. “This ruling reaffirms that even in the face of political pressure, the judiciary can uphold the rule of law,” said Maria Salazar, an attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. Conversely, Trump administration officials decried the ruling as judicial overreach, vowing to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Activist judges are undermining our ability to protect American communities from dangerous criminals,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson stated.
The case has intensified debates over immigration policy in a polarized political climate. Critics argue Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was a pretext to bypass legal safeguards for deportations, while supporters claim it was a necessary response to rising crime linked to Venezuelan migrants. Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows that Venezuelan apprehensions at the border have surged since 2023, though only a small fraction are confirmed gang members.
For now, the ruling suspends deportations under the disputed order, offering temporary relief to Venezuelan immigrants in Texas. However, with an appeal looming and Trump’s administration doubling down on its immigration crackdown, the legal battle is far from over. The outcome could reshape the boundaries of executive power in immigration enforcement for years to come.
