The Trump administration faced a significant legal setback on March 15, 2025, when a judge issued a temporary restraining order halting the planned use of a wartime law aimed at speeding up deportations. The law in question, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, was intended to be invoked by President Donald Trump to remove noncitizens, particularly those connected to transnational criminal groups such as the Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela. The move was met with an immediate challenge from civil rights groups, leading to a swift court ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, filed the lawsuit on behalf of several pseudonymous Venezuelan men to prevent the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act as a deportation tool. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that this law, which has only been used three times in U.S. history during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II was inappropriate for a non-wartime situation. The law was notoriously invoked during World War II to justify the internment of noncitizens from Japan, Germany, Italy, and other nations, a practice widely viewed as unjust and racially discriminatory.
The ACLU’s legal team stressed that the Alien Enemies Act was only intended for use during wartime and in cases of actual military conflict, such as a foreign nation waging war or invading the United States. The plaintiffs pointed out that Venezuela, the country from which the targeted individuals originate, was not engaged in war with the United States and had not launched any military actions against the nation. The ACLU argued that using the law in this context was not only a misapplication of its original purpose but also unconstitutional, violating due process rights and protections under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Judge James E. Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington D.C., ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing a temporary restraining order to prevent any deportations under the Alien Enemies Act for 14 days. The ruling came in response to an emergency application filed by the plaintiffs, who argued that they faced imminent danger of removal without any meaningful review or protection. According to the plaintiffs’ legal filings, such deportations could lead to irreparable harm, and the court could lose jurisdiction if individuals were removed from the United States before a final ruling was issued.
The court order temporarily halting the deportations was seen as a significant victory for those opposing the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement. Legal experts noted that the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in this context represented a radical shift in the use of wartime powers for domestic law enforcement purposes. The plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration was using the act to bypass existing immigration laws and protections, effectively escalating the government’s efforts to control immigration through more extreme and legally questionable measures.
Following the ruling, the Trump administration quickly filed an appeal, setting the stage for further legal battles in the coming days. The case is now expected to move quickly through the courts, with a hearing scheduled for Monday afternoon to address the merits of the case and the future of the restraining order. The outcome of this legal challenge could have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement and the limits of executive power.
