...
By Billal Rahman
Immigration Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled on Tuesday that President Donald Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to expedite the removal of suspected gang members, in a boost for the administration's mass deportation plans.
Why It Matters
In March 2025, Trump invoked the AEA to authorize the expedited deportation of Venezuelan nationals, suspected of being affiliated with the notorious Tren de Aragua gang. The administration labeled the group a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), alleging it engaged in criminal activities such as human trafficking and drug smuggling, and posed a national security threat.
Read More on Politics
The ruling could have profound implications for immigration policy and executive authority, especially as civil liberties groups have raised concerns about its potential for abuse and erosion of due process.
...
What To Know
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines ruled in favor of the Trump administration's use of the AEA to deport Venezuelan nationals suspected of being members of criminal gangs.
Haines, a Trump appointee, said that she determined the White House proclamation "complies with AEA." However, she also noted that the administration "must provide greater notice to those subject to removal under the AEA than they are currently providing."
While allowing the expedited deportation process to continue, the judge mandated that individuals must be given at least 21 days' notice to contest their removal. This requirement represents a significant shift from the previous practice, where individuals were only given 12 to 24 hours' notice.
Haines concluded that the evidence presented by the Trump administration supported the president's reasoning behind the proclamation. She referenced the official designation of the Tren de Aragua gang as a foreign terrorist organization by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The ruling from Haines diverges from decisions made by federal judges in Colorado, New York, and South Texas. They ruled that it was unlawful for Trump to invoke the act to deport suspected gang members outside of the typical immigration court process.
As a result, all three issued orders blocking or temporarily halting such deportations in their respective districts. Just hours after Haines's ruling on Tuesday, a judge in West Texas also issued a temporary block on deportations under the AEA.
Haines's decision could pave the way for deportations under the legislation in her western Pennsylvania court district, which includes the Moshannon Valley Processing Center, the largest immigration detention facility in the Northeast.
However, migrants targeted for deportation would still have the opportunity to challenge their removals, potentially bringing their cases before different judges.
The Trump administration has not announced any new AEA deportations since mid-March, when the swift removal of over 130 Venezuelans to an El Salvador prison sparked legal challenges.
Immigrant advocates have called on the Supreme Court to clarify how much notice migrants should receive before removal under the act and to review the legality of Trump's use of the law. The administration has requested the court lift its block on deportations in North Texas, claiming adequate notice has been provided.
Before Trump's presidency, the AEA had been used only three times, always during wartime.
What People Are Saying
William C. Banks, professor of law at Syracuse University, told Newsweek: "I would not characterize the single district court decision in PA as a major legal win for Trump. For a few reasons. First, Judge Haines' decision is the only one of five district courts to rule on the AEA to find in the government's favor. And her ruling only applies in her district.
"Second, Judge Haines rejected the government's claim that the AEA permits them to summarily deport individuals. She required at least 21 days' notice to contest their removal. Notice and an opportunity to be heard is at the core of the migrants' claims against the government everywhere where the AEA is being invoked. If fair processes are followed it is more likely that mistakes and overreach will not occur.
"Third, Haines misread the history and meaning of the AEA. It was written to apply in wartime, against a state enemy. Tren de Aragua may be a FTO but they are not Venezuela and they are not at war with the United States. No other judge has construed the AEA to apply to a non-state actor at peacetime.
"The Supreme Court may or may not clarify the reach of the AEA and whether litigation will continue in individual districts. Unless the Court acts in May or June, AEA litigation will likely continue with individual habeas corpus cases in the districts where individuals are confined."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, told ABC News: "The court properly rejected the government's argument that they can remove people with only 12 hours' notice. But we disagree with the court's ruling that the Alien Enemies Act can be used during peacetime."
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines wrote: "The court cannot help but ask: Is a Foreign Terrorist Organization like [Tren de Aragua] not the modern equivalent of a pirate or robber?"
What Happens Next
Deportations under the AEA may proceed in Pennsylvania, but remain blocked elsewhere.
Update 5/15/25, 6:21 a.m. ET: This article was updated with comment from William C. Banks.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines