In a direct challenge to President Donald Trump’s fast-tracked deportation strategy, two federal judges have extended temporary blocks on the removal of Venezuelan migrants and raised sharp concerns about his use of an 18th-century wartime law to do so.
The law in question, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, was dusted off by Trump’s administration in March to justify immediate deportations—particularly of Venezuelan men alleged to be affiliated with the gang Tren de Aragua. But federal judges aren’t buying the urgency without due process.
“This is not a secret court, an inquisition in medieval times. This is the United States of America,” declared U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein during a Manhattan hearing. He seemed poised to demand at least 10 days’ advance notice before anyone is deported under the act, stressing that speed can’t come at the cost of constitutional protections.
In Colorado, Judge Charlotte Sweeney went further, mandating a 21-day notice and requiring that Venezuelan detainees be informed of their right to challenge deportations in court. Her ruling signaled skepticism over the administration’s legal footing, pointing out that invoking wartime powers in a peacetime immigration case might not hold up under scrutiny.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the migrants, had sought a 30-day buffer—mirroring procedures last used during World War II when the same statute was invoked against Japanese, German, and Italian nationals.
The courts are now setting the first real guardrails since the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 7 decision, which affirmed migrants’ rights to challenge deportations but left the timeline and legal underpinnings murky.
Trump’s March 15 proclamation cast hundreds of Venezuelan men as threats and arranged for their removal to El Salvador’s infamous mega-prison under a $6 million deal with President Nayib Bukele. The administration insists these individuals are tied to a foreign terrorist group, but family members and legal advocates say many were never given a fair shot to respond or defend themselves—some not even informed of the accusations before being loaded onto planes.
Judge Hellerstein flagged constitutional red flags around Trump’s deportation order, particularly the risk of “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. Meanwhile, Judge Sweeney doubted whether Tren de Aragua’s presence in the U.S. even qualifies as an act of war, calling into question the entire rationale behind the president’s use of the law.
Despite the legal pushback, the administration continues to stand by its approach. Justice Department lawyer Tiberius Davis defended the deportations, emphasizing Trump’s electoral mandate and asserting that migrants would be given at least 24 hours to respond—far less than what courts now seem ready to accept.
And in yet another legal entanglement, the administration admitted to wrongfully deporting a Salvadoran man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had lived in Maryland. A judge has since demanded answers and documents to determine how the mistake happened—and what’s being done to bring him back.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the courtroom is now the frontline for testing the boundaries of presidential power—and how far wartime laws can stretch in an era that’s anything but war.
