Federal Judges Block Trump Administration’s Use Of Alien Enemies Act In Spite Of SCOTUS Ruling

Two federal judges—one in Texas and another in New York—issued temporary restraining orders on Wednesday blocking the use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan nationals. The rulings mark the latest twist in the high-stakes legal fight over the wartime-era law’s modern application.

The decisions come just days after the Supreme Court narrowly allowed the administration to resume AEA-based deportations, but with added due process protections. That ruling has now triggered fresh litigation in lower courts, challenging how those protections are being applied.

The Alien Enemies Act, originally passed in 1798 and most prominently used during World War II, grants the executive broad powers to deport nationals of enemy states during times of declared war or conflict. The Trump administration has leaned heavily on the law in recent months, issuing a proclamation labeling Venezuelan gang affiliates as a “transnational threat” and using the AEA as legal cover for expedited removals.

But in two separate lawsuits filed in Brownsville, Texas, and Manhattan, New York, lawyers argued the administration was violating constitutional protections by deporting Venezuelan migrants without adequate notice or the ability to challenge their removal in court.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a Trump appointee in Texas, sided with three Venezuelan plaintiffs and issued a 14-day restraining order, blocking their removal and that of “any other person” detained under the proclamation at the El Valle Detention Center.

In a separate ruling, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee in New York, halted the deportations of two other Venezuelans, agreeing they were at “imminent risk of removal” before they could file legal challenges. Hellerstein did not directly weigh in on the constitutionality of using the AEA in this context, but effectively blocked its use for now.

The legal decisions come as the Trump administration continues its partnership with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, including expedited deportations to high-security prisons in the Central American country.

At a press conference earlier this month, Trump defended the use of the Alien Enemies Act as necessary for “protecting the homeland from criminal infiltration and cartel-backed insurgency.” But critics, including some in the federal judiciary, are questioning whether the administration is stretching the bounds of the law—and constitutional protections—too far.

Friday’s hearing in Texas could determine whether the temporary block becomes a preliminary injunction, which would extend legal protections for a larger class of detainees. The New York case is also expected to move quickly toward arguments on the broader legality of using the Alien Enemies Act in this way.

The rulings also come amid growing concerns over judicial activism in the early days of President Trump’s second term, as his administration has faced an unprecedented wave of legal challenges across a range of policy areas. In just the first two months since returning to the Oval Office, Trump has encountered a flurry of court rulings blocking or delaying key initiatives—from immigration enforcement and environmental deregulation to executive staffing decisions. Supporters of the president argue that many of these legal maneuvers reflect a coordinated effort by ideological opponents within the judiciary to stall or undermine the administration’s agenda. The sheer volume and speed of litigation have raised questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches as the Trump administration pushes forward with its policy priorities.

READ NEXT: House Passes Bill to Limit Nationwide Injunctions by Federal Judges