Federal judges appear poised to uphold President Trump’s use of a wartime-era immigration law to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan gang members linked to the Tren de Aragua.
The court’s reaction signals a major legal victory for Trump’s team and a potential Supreme Court showdown over the scope of presidential wartime authority.
Key Facts:
- A Fifth Circuit appeals panel heard arguments on Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members.
- Trump’s lawyers argue the Venezuelan-linked Tren de Aragua gang poses a national security threat equivalent to an invasion.
- Judge Andrew Oldham challenged ACLU lawyers, questioning whether courts can overrule the President in armed conflict decisions.
- The ACLU claims the law doesn’t apply since the gang isn’t a traditional armed force or foreign government.
- Judges Southwick and Oldham seemed sympathetic to Trump’s authority under the 1798 law if an “invasion” is declared.
The Rest of The Story:
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 grants the President sweeping authority to remove non-naturalized citizens of hostile nations during times of war or invasion.
The Trump administration argues that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, allegedly directed or enabled by the Maduro regime, meets this definition.
During the appeals hearing, Judge Oldham pressed the ACLU’s lawyer, asking, “Can you give me a Supreme Court case that says a federal court can countermand the chief executive on a decision in an armed conflict?”
Judge Southwick added that while the gang may not be an invading military, Trump’s description could fit the law’s language regarding a “predatory incursion.”
The ACLU’s Lee Gelernt countered that the law should apply only to organized military forces, not clandestine groups: “The founders were not looking at this as some subtle clandestine thing.”
The judges, however, appeared inclined to defer to the President’s judgment if he officially labels the threat an invasion.
Commentary:
The fundamental issue here is simple: who decides what constitutes an invasion? Under the Constitution, that power lies with the President as Commander in Chief.
No federal judge has the authority to override the executive branch on matters of national defense and wartime decision-making.
Judge Oldham rightly questioned the ACLU’s stance with a direct challenge: “Can you give me a Supreme Court case that says a federal court can countermand the chief executive on a decision in an armed conflict?”
The answer, of course, is no. That’s because such authority doesn’t exist.
Courts are not designed to manage war powers.
This is precisely why we always expected the lower court ruling to be overturned. The law is clear.
When the President determines that the country is under threat—be it by a foreign government or a government-backed terror group—he has the legal right to act in defense of the nation.
The activist judiciary has too often strayed into political territory, undermining executive authority with ideologically driven rulings.
That must end. Judges who refuse to respect the constitutional limits of their office should be removed from the bench.
We need elected representatives in Congress who understand the balance of powers.
That means winning a strong enough majority in the next midterm elections to take action—through legislation and, where needed, impeachment—to restore constitutional order.
If a hostile foreign gang embedded in U.S. cities, potentially carrying out orders from a dictatorship, isn’t grounds for presidential action, then what is?
Waiting for formal war declarations in today’s asymmetric warfare world is a luxury we can’t afford.
Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act may be controversial, but it’s rooted in legal tradition.
The President is not only permitted but expected to protect the nation using every lawful tool at his disposal.
The courts should recognize that, not obstruct it.
The Bottom Line:
Trump’s use of a centuries-old wartime law to deport members of a Venezuela-linked gang is likely to be upheld by a federal appeals court.
Judges signaled strong deference to presidential wartime authority.
The decision could reinforce the President’s power to act swiftly during national security threats without judicial interference.
If the Supreme Court agrees, it may reshape how foreign threats are handled within U.S. borders.
Read Next
– George Bush And Barack Obama Team Up To Slam President Trump
– Assaults on ICE Agents Surge 700% as Criminal Illegal Aliens Grow Bolder
– Air Force And Space Force Smash Recruiting Goals Three Months Early
– DOJ Targets Naturalized Criminals and Terror Threats in Major Citizenship Crackdown
– NYC Dem Mayoral Candidate’s Shocking Plan to Take Over Private Industry
