by A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport alleged gang-affiliated migrants is lawful.
However, the court also found that the administration must provide more adequate notice to individuals facing removal under the law.
The ruling adds a new legal perspective in a divided judicial landscape, as courts in Texas and New York previously blocked similar deportations under the AEA.
What Happened
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines ruled that Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act—an 18th-century wartime law—is consistent with the statute.
The case focused on a Venezuelan migrant, identified as A.S.R., currently in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.
Judge Haines found that while the proclamation itself is lawful, the administration’s notice procedures were insufficient and must be improved.
Key Details
- Trump’s administration classified certain migrant gang members as a “hybrid criminal state” threatening the U.S.
- The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had designated Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization.
- Judge Haines ruled that this qualifies as a “predatory incursion” under the AEA.
- The judge emphasized that the proclamation met the legal standards, but migrants must be given at least 21 days’ notice and clear information in English and Spanish regarding their removal.
Reactions or Statements
ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt expressed disagreement with the judge’s interpretation of the AEA.
“The court properly rejected the government’s argument that they can remove people with only 12 hours’ notice,” Gelernt said.
“But we disagree with the ruling that the Alien Enemies Act can be used during peacetime.”
Judge Haines defended her stance, writing:
“It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held in secret.”
Investigation or What’s Next
While this ruling affirms the lawfulness of the AEA’s use, it conflicts with other federal decisions:
- A Texas judge ruled the AEA’s application “exceeds the scope” of the law.
- A New York judge found the act was “not validly invoked” for deporting alleged Tren de Aragua members.
The case involving A.S.R. will proceed with the new 21-day notice requirement, setting a precedent for future deportation procedures under the act.
FAQs
What is the Alien Enemies Act (AEA)?
The AEA is a law dating back to 1798, allowing the U.S. government to detain or deport noncitizens from hostile nations during times of war or threat.
Who is Tren de Aragua?
Tren de Aragua is a Venezuelan criminal gang designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Secretary of State.
Why is this ruling significant?
It diverges from other federal court rulings, potentially setting up a broader legal battle that may reach the Supreme Court.
What rights must now be given to deportees under this ruling?
Individuals must receive at least 21 days’ notice in English and Spanish, with a clear explanation of their removal under the AEA.
Can this ruling be appealed?
Yes, the case could be taken to a higher court for appeal or potentially reviewed by the Supreme Court if conflicting rulings persist.
Summary / Final Takeaway
Judge Stephanie Haines’ ruling supports the Trump administration’s legal basis for using the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members. However, it also mandates greater procedural safeguards for migrants facing deportation. As other federal courts have ruled differently, the legal debate over the AEA’s modern use appears far from over.
