Supreme Court News Could Be ‘Game Over’ for Democrats: CNN
In a significant legal development, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a temporary ruling that blocks former President Donald Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport individuals suspected of gang activity—specifically alleged members of a Venezuelan criminal organization. The ruling adds yet another layer of complexity to an already heated legal and political battle over the president’s use of wartime powers to manage immigration enforcement.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court voted 2-1 to uphold two lower court orders that prevent the federal government from executing deportations under the Alien Enemies Act while a broader legal challenge unfolds. The court’s decision does not permanently block Trump’s attempt to utilize the law, but it means the current restrictions will remain in place until the legal case is resolved.
This decision is the latest chapter in a rapidly evolving and highly controversial legal dispute over the boundaries of presidential authority and the use of a rarely invoked 18th-century statute.
The Alien Enemies Act: An Old Law in a New Era
At the center of this legal firestorm is the Alien Enemies Act, a provision originally enacted in 1798 as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts. It allows the U.S. president to apprehend, detain, and remove non-citizens from nations considered hostile to the United States during times of war or national emergency.
Historically, the law has been used sparingly—most notably during World War II—but President Trump revived it earlier this year, arguing that transnational crime syndicates operating from Venezuela, particularly gangs linked to political unrest and narcotics trafficking, represent a clear threat to national security.
In March, Trump ordered a series of rapid deportations based on intelligence linking dozens of undocumented Venezuelan nationals to violent criminal networks. The administration claimed the use of the Alien Enemies Act was necessary to “neutralize an emerging security threat” and justified the move under existing national emergency designations related to transnational crime.
Legal Pushback and Emergency Hearings
However, Trump’s controversial use of the law was immediately challenged in court, with immigration advocates and civil rights groups arguing that the statute is outdated, overly broad, and violates constitutional protections such as due process and equal protection.
On the evening of March 15, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an emergency injunction halting all deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, stating that the legal framework needed a thorough judicial review before such sweeping action could proceed. The judge questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority and noted that the individuals targeted were entitled to legal process.
Despite this emergency order, two deportation flights reportedly departed during the court hearing, raising alarms and prompting accusations that the administration had willfully ignored the injunction. Lawyers representing the deportees and immigrant advocacy groups demanded that the planes be returned, but the individuals on board were never brought back.
The Justice Department insisted the flights were already in motion and could not be stopped in time, but critics argued that the administration acted in defiance of the judiciary.
Tensions Escalate Between the Courts and the White House
The fallout from those deportations has sparked a fierce legal and political clash. Judge Boasberg demanded clarity and accountability from the Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting detailed records of the decisions surrounding the flights. However, the DOJ resisted full disclosure, citing national security and operational concerns.
This back-and-forth has led to intense public scrutiny, especially after Trump accused Boasberg of overstepping his judicial authority and called for his impeachment—a rare and aggressive move against a sitting federal judge. The statement further fueled an already volatile debate over the separation of powers and respect for judicial independence.
In a highly unusual move, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a public rebuke of Trump’s remarks, defending Judge Boasberg’s integrity and warning that political attacks on the judiciary pose a danger to the rule of law. Roberts emphasized the importance of an impartial legal system and condemned what he described as an erosion of public trust in democratic institutions.
What the Appeals Court Ruling Means
The recent DC Circuit Court ruling does not permanently strike down the use of the Alien Enemies Act, but it affirms that the lower court’s temporary injunctions will remain in place while the case proceeds.
Writing for the majority, Judge Patricia Millett stated that the government had not sufficiently demonstrated that immediate deportations were necessary to protect national security or that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights had been adequately considered.
The dissenting judge, Judge Neomi Rao, argued that the executive branch should be afforded greater deference in matters of immigration enforcement, particularly when national security is invoked. She emphasized that the Alien Enemies Act is still valid law and that halting its use could endanger the public.
What’s Next? A Legal Battle Far From Over
The case now moves into full judicial review, where arguments will be heard on the constitutionality and scope of the Alien Enemies Act in a modern context. Legal scholars are watching closely, noting that this case could set a precedent for how far a U.S. president can go in invoking wartime or emergency powers in immigration matters.
Meanwhile, immigrant rights groups are urging the courts to rein in the use of sweeping, century-old laws in situations involving non-citizens who may not pose an imminent threat. They argue that deportations without due process, particularly under an act never designed for use in the current global context, undermine America’s legal and moral obligations.
For Trump and his supporters, the push to use the Alien Enemies Act is seen as a necessary and bold step to combat foreign criminal influence, especially amid rising concerns about border security.
But for critics, it represents a dangerous overreach—an attempt to use obscure legal tools to bypass established immigration courts and procedures.
With the legal process ongoing, the courts are poised to become a critical battleground in the debate over immigration enforcement, presidential power, and civil liberties in the 21st century.
