The desire of a U.S. magistrate to obstruct the mass deportations of violent offenders seems odd. With far-reaching legal and national security implications, a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to stop deporting Venezuelans under a historic wartime law. The administration is compelled by the ruling to return any deportation flights that are currently underway. Trump called the Tren de Aragua gang a “foreign terrorist organization” in order to target them.
Historic Wartime Law at Center of Immigration Battle
The Trump administration’s decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a law originally designed for use during wartime—has triggered significant legal controversy. The administration specifically targeted members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, which originated in a Venezuelan prison and has expanded operations following mass migration from the country. In his executive order, President Trump declared the gang was “perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States” that posed “substantial danger” to national security.
“Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA,” Trump’s statement reads. “The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”
The law has controversial historical precedents, having been used during World War II for the internment of Japanese Americans. Legal experts note this marks the first time the act has been applied to target members of a non-state criminal organization rather than citizens of an enemy nation during a declared war. The administration’s expansive interpretation resembles post-9/11 security measures that extended presidential authority in the face of non-traditional threats.
Guys.
A judge just stopped Trump from deporting Tren de Aragua gang members.
IMPEACH HIM.pic.twitter.com/zj6j28Ergm
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 16, 2025
Judge Orders Immediate Halt to Deportations
Federal Judge James E. Boasberg issued a sweeping temporary restraining order halting all deportations under the act for up to 14 days. His ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Democracy Forward on behalf of affected migrants. In an extraordinary move, the judge also ordered any planes that had already departed with deportees to return “however that’s accomplished—whether turning around the plane or not.” The administration had already begun deporting migrants to El Salvador and Honduras before the ruling.
The judge explained his reasoning during an emergency Saturday evening hearing: “I do not believe I can wait any longer and am required to act. A brief delay in their removal does not cause the government any harm.” The ruling specifically prevents deportations without due process hearings, a key constitutional concern raised by the plaintiffs. Legal observers note the case raises complex questions about presidential powers and constitutional rights of non-citizens during national security emergencies.
Federal ACTIVIST judge, illegally abusing the power of the bench. Put a halt on Trump flying Tren De Aragua out of the country.
TRUMP DID IT ANYWAY… pic.twitter.com/7x1znON0B5
— Steve ULTRA MAGA (@Steve7317532777) March 16, 2025
Administration Appeals and Claims Judicial Overreach
The Justice Department quickly filed an appeal against the judge’s order, with Attorney General Pam Bondi issuing a strongly worded rebuke. The administration argues that judicial interference in this matter threatens national security by limiting the president’s constitutional authority to protect Americans from dangerous foreign threats. The appeal challenges both the legal reasoning behind the judge’s decision and the practical implications of returning deportation flights already in progress.
Bondi further accused the court of prioritizing “terrorists over the safety of Americans.” This language reflects the administration’s framing of the issue as a matter of national security rather than immigration policy. The case now moves to a higher court, where a panel of judges will review whether the Alien Enemies Act can be applied in this novel context. The outcome could establish significant precedent regarding executive authority in addressing non-traditional security threats.
National Security Versus Judicial Authority
This case highlights the ongoing tension between executive national security powers and judicial oversight. Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that the president must have flexibility to address emerging threats, particularly when dealing with transnational criminal organizations operating across borders. They point to the Tren de Aragua gang’s documented violence and criminal enterprises as justification for extraordinary measures. Critics contend that bypassing due process sets a dangerous precedent that could undermine constitutional protections.
A hearing for further proceedings has been scheduled within the two-week window of the temporary restraining order. Both sides are preparing extensive legal arguments about the scope of presidential authority under the Alien Enemies Act when applied to non-state actors. The case represents a significant test of executive power in the modern era, with potential ramifications for future administrations facing unconventional security challenges that blur the lines between immigration enforcement and national defense.