Brownsville, TX — A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s March 2025 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and deport Venezuelan nationals was unlawful, finding the order exceeded the statute’s authority and failed to meet constitutional requirements.
In a 33-page opinion issued May 1, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez permanently enjoined the government from using Trump’s proclamation to detain or remove Venezuelans based on alleged ties to the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. The ruling was issued in J.A.V. v. Trump, a class action brought by three Venezuelan men held in immigration detention in the Southern District of Texas.
Judge Rodriguez concluded that the President’s proclamation did not lawfully establish the conditions necessary to invoke the AEA, and therefore could not serve as a valid basis for detention or removal. “The Court finds that the Proclamation does not support a lawful use of the Alien Enemies Act,” Rodriguez wrote.
“The court ruled the president can’t unilaterally declare an invasion of the United States and invoke a wartime authority during peacetime,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelerent, who was lead counsel on the case. “Congress never meant for this 18th-century wartime law to be used this way. This is a critically important decision that prevents more people from being sent to the notorious CECOT prison.”
On March 15, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation declaring that TdA, allegedly directed by the Venezuelan government, was engaged in “an invasion or predatory incursion” into the United States. The proclamation ordered the detention and removal of all non-naturalized Venezuelan nationals aged 14 or older found to be associated with TdA.
Following the order, hundreds of Venezuelans were detained, including the petitioners in this case: J.A.V., J.G.G., and W.G.H. All were held at the El Valle Detention Center and denied association with TdA. They filed a habeas petition on April 9 and sought class certification and injunctive relief.
The court found that the proclamation did not satisfy the statutory conditions required to invoke the AEA, which authorizes the President to detain and remove nationals of a foreign country only when “a declared war or actual, imminent, or attempted invasion or predatory incursion” exists.
“The Proclamation falls short of describing a ‘predatory incursion’ as that concept was understood at the time of the AEA’s enactment,” Judge Rodriguez wrote. “The term ‘predatory incursion’ refers to an armed incursion akin to an invasion, not merely criminal activity by a gang or individuals.”
Rodriguez emphasized that historical context and the statute’s text limit its application to traditional wartime contexts. “To find otherwise would be to remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority,” he stated.
In rejecting the government’s argument that TdA’s actions constituted a “predatory incursion,” the court found that even if TdA were acting at the direction of Venezuela, “the alleged actions are criminal in nature and do not rise to the level of an invasion or predatory incursion contemplated by the statute.”
Judge Rodriguez warned against unchecked executive authority in interpreting and invoking the AEA. “Accepting the Government’s argument would allow the Executive Branch to unilaterally define the conditions under which the AEA applies, and then declare that those conditions exist,” the ruling stated.
He added that such a reading “would eviscerate the AEA’s conditions and provide the President with unbounded authority to detain and remove citizens of any foreign country, including those with which the United States is not at war.”
The court ruled that because the proclamation failed to satisfy the threshold conditions for using the AEA, it could not serve as a lawful basis for either detention or removal.
The court also addressed the due process concerns raised by petitioners, who argued they had not been given adequate notice or opportunity to challenge their designation as “alien enemies.” Judge Rodriguez noted that the AEA itself does not displace constitutional protections: “The Court concludes that the Petitioners’ procedural due process rights are implicated by their detention and the threat of removal under the Proclamation.”
Though the court declined to determine the precise procedural protections required, it found that the government’s failure to provide a “constitutionally adequate process” before detention or removal was a significant deficiency.
The court observed that, under the government’s current procedures, “removal can be effected with no more than a day’s notice, and without any meaningful opportunity to challenge the basis for that removal.”
The court certified a class consisting of all non-naturalized Venezuelan nationals aged 14 or older who are, or may be, detained in the Southern District of Texas pursuant to Trump’s proclamation. Judge Rodriguez granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the government from using the proclamation to detain or remove members of the class.
“As a result, the Executive Branch cannot rely on the AEA, based on the Proclamation, to detain the Named Petitioners and the certified class, or to remove them from the country,” the court wrote.
The ruling, however, did not prohibit the government from pursuing removal under other lawful immigration statutes. “Nothing in this decision prevents the Government from pursuing appropriate immigration proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Judge Rodriguez clarified.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which remains one of the few surviving elements of the original Alien and Sedition Acts, has been invoked rarely in U.S. history—primarily during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, when the United States was in declared wars with foreign nations. Trump’s attempt to use the statute against nationals of Venezuela—without a formal state of war—marked a novel and controversial expansion.
Judge Rodriguez’s ruling reflects a cautious approach to executive wartime powers, particularly when they intersect with immigration enforcement. The court made clear that criminal activity—even if transnational in nature—does not equate to war or invasion as contemplated by the AEA.
“The Court does not discount the serious threat posed by transnational criminal organizations,” Rodriguez acknowledged. “But the statute at issue is not a tool for addressing gang activity; it is a wartime measure, and its use must be bounded by law.”
“This permanent injunction is a significant win for preventing unlawful, unilateral executive action that has been stoking fear across Texas, especially within border communities. Immigrants are, and always have been, an integral part of this state and nation. They, too, are protected by U.S. laws and the Constitution,” said Adriana Piñon, legal director of the ACLU of Texas.
