admin
A federal judge blocked former President Donald Trump’s attempt to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants under the , a rarely used wartime statute, after ruling the U.S. is not legally at war with Venezuela. The decision halted deportation flights mid-operation, but the Trump administration proceeded with transfers to El Salvador despite verbal orders from the court to return the planes.
### Legal Basis for the Block
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg argued the Alien Enemies Act against the migrants’ home country—a threshold unmet in this case. Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano emphasized that the law, historically invoked only during declared conflicts like WWII, grants deportation authority solely when migrants originate from a nation “engaged in war” with the U.S.. Since Venezuela is not a wartime adversary, Trump’s reliance on the statute was deemed legally unsupported.
### Administration’s Defiance
Despite Boasberg’s emergency order, two flights carrying migrants to El Salvador and Honduras continued. The Trump administration claimed the deportations were justified because the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) posed a “moral equivalent of war,” but the court rejected this interpretation. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele confirmed accepting over 250 alleged gang members, mocking the court’s intervention as “too late”.
### Constitutional Implications
Napolitano criticized Trump’s disregard for judicial authority, stressing that to constitutional governance. He noted that even if the administration believed the ruling flawed, proper recourse was an appeal—not defiance. The episode raised alarms about unilateral executive power, as the Alien Enemies Act bypasses standard due process protections, allowing deportation without hearings or trials.
### Fallout and Criticism
Boasberg’s order briefly suspended deportations pending further review, but critics accused Trump of inflaming tensions by labeling judges “crooked” and calling for impeachment. Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked such rhetoric, affirming that judicial rulings are not grounds for impeachment. Meanwhile, Venezuelan officials condemned the deportations as reminiscent of authoritarian regimes.
This legal battle underscores tensions between executive overreach and judicial oversight, testing the limits of wartime statutes in modern immigration policy. The administration’s willingness to sidestep court mandates risks eroding constitutional checks designed to prevent autocratic governance.
