Venezuelan Migrants Face Imminent Deportation Under U.S. Wartime Law

The Trump administration’s use of an 18th-century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants detained in Texas has ignited legal battles and raised serious concerns about due process.

The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798, a statute historically tied to wartime internments, has drawn sharp criticism from civil liberties advocates and legal experts who argue it undermines fundamental rights.

Imminent Deportations Prompt Legal Action

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed an emergency motion in a Texas federal court to halt the deportations of two Venezuelan men held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas.

The ACLU reported that U.S. officials informed the men they were designated for removal under the AEA, with deportations potentially occurring as early as Friday night or Saturday.

“Petitioners have learned that officers at Bluebonnet have distributed notices under the Alien Enemies Act, in English only, that designate Venezuelan men for removal under the AEA,” the ACLU stated in its filing.

This marks the first instance of deportations under the AEA since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 7, 2025, that the Trump administration must provide migrants with notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportations.

The ruling did not specify the duration of notice required, prompting lawyers to demand a minimum of 30 days to allow migrants to contest their cases.

A Historical Law in Modern Dispute

The AEA, notorious for its use during World War II to intern and deport individuals of Japanese, German, and Italian descent, has been repurposed to target alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

On March 15, 2025, over 130 migrants were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison under the law, with the administration claiming they were gang affiliates.

However, lawyers and family members assert that many had no gang ties and were denied the chance to dispute the allegations.

The administration’s actions have met swift judicial resistance. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., blocked further AEA deportations and is investigating whether officials violated his order to return the deported migrants.

Boasberg warned that he could hold officials in contempt, prompting the Justice Department to seek a pause on his probe from an appeals court.

Challenges to Judicial Authority

The Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies, including its use of the AEA, have sparked over 200 legal challenges nationwide.

Critics, including Democrats and legal analysts, accuse the administration of delaying or disregarding court orders, signaling a troubling disregard for judicial authority.

President Trump’s call for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who emphasized that appeals, not impeachment, are the appropriate response to adverse rulings.

Cases like that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man allegedly wrongly deported to El Salvador’s notorious gang prison, underscore the human toll of these policies.

“He has never been charged with, nor convicted of, any crime,” his lawyers told Reuters, disputing claims of his MS-13 affiliation.

A Push for Accountability

As courts grapple with the administration’s immigration crackdown, advocates urge greater transparency and adherence to due process.

The ACLU’s latest filing highlights the urgency of protecting migrants’ rights amid fears of swift, opaque deportations.

With tensions escalating between the executive and judicial branches, the outcome of these legal battles will likely shape the future of U.S. immigration policy and the balance of power in American governance.