A federal judge has thrown another wrench into Donald Trump’s hardline deportation campaign, hitting pause on the controversial use of an 18th-century wartime law that the former president invoked to fast-track the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
The order, handed down by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, extends a temporary freeze on Trump’s deployment of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a dusty legal relic originally intended for hostile foreign nationals during armed conflict. The halt now remains in effect until at least April 12 as legal battles continue to unfold.
At the heart of the legal clash is Trump’s effort to deport individuals suspected of being part of Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan gang he declared a terrorist group earlier this year. His administration argues the gang’s activities amount to “irregular warfare” on U.S. soil—justifying the use of a law more commonly associated with historical wartime internments of Japanese, Italian, and German immigrants.
But civil rights groups aren’t buying it. The ACLU is leading the charge, warning that Trump’s approach erases fundamental due process, allowing people to be exiled based on unproven allegations without a fair hearing.
The standoff escalated earlier this month when Trump greenlit the law’s use, prompting a rapid challenge in court. Judge Boasberg responded with a two-week block on March 15, which has now been extended.
Backing Boasberg’s restraint, a federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld the initial freeze in a 2-1 ruling. The lone dissent came from a judge appointed by Trump himself.
Undeterred, Trump’s team fired back Friday, appealing to the Supreme Court in an attempt to lift the restriction and push forward with deportations.
Meanwhile, the individuals caught in the crosshairs—alleged gang members rounded up and sent to El Salvador under a separate agreement—are now being held in the country’s notorious CECOT prison, one of the harshest incarceration facilities in the region.
For now, the courtroom fight continues, and the wartime statute remains on ice—its modern-day application in question, its legacy once again up for debate.
