Navigating the Maze: Recent Court Challenges to the Alien Enemies Act

Share this post

Since President Trump’s inauguration on January 20th, a series of legal battles has unfolded in the U.S. federal courts, bringing a centuries-old law—the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798—into sharp contemporary focus. Unlike prior historical uses tied to a declared war, the government’s invocation here relies on broader national security justifications, prompting the courts to evaluate its compatibility with modern constitutional norms.

These cases, initiated against the backdrop of a Presidential Proclamation concerning national security and a Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua, have raised profound questions about executive power, immigration procedures, and the fundamental rights of individuals within the U.S. legal system.

Here I unpack three of these significant cases: J.G.G. v. Trump, Abrego Garcia v. Noem, and D.B.U. v. Trump. We’ll explore the core issues, the arguments presented, the courts’ responses, and the broader questions they prompt for all of us.

J.G.G. v. Trump: Due Process and the Reach of a Wartime Law

The case of J.G.G. v. Trump, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, emerged as a prominent challenge to the government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The Heart of the Matter: Initially brought by five Venezuelan nationals, this lawsuit contested the President’s March 15, 2025 Proclamation, which invoked the AEA to authorize the immediate removal of certain Venezuelan citizens deemed members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The plaintiffs argued that this action, taken under a law historically applied solely in wartime, was being used to bypass standard immigration removal procedures and deny them fair legal proceedings.

What the Plaintiffs Argued: The core of Plaintiffs’ argument is that no matter what statutory or executive authority is invoked, the Constitution still requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard before deportation occurs. They argued that the administration exceeded its authority under the AEA and violated:

  • The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
  • The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA)
  • The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
  • The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of fair legal proceedings, especially the right to a hearing before being deported.
  • The right to ask a court to review whether their detention is lawful (often called habeas corpus).

The Trump Administration’s Position: The Trump Administration defended its actions, appealing court orders that temporarily halted removals. They argued, among other things, that:

  • The court’s initial oral directives might not have been enforceable against the Executive Branch.
  • Some court orders were issued after individuals had already been removed.
  • The government argued that a special rule (the state secrets privilege) prevented them from sharing certain flight information.
  • The D.C. court was not the proper venue for these challenges.

Key Court Actions and Rulings: The case saw a rapid succession of legal maneuvers:

  • March 15, 2025: Chief Judge James Boasberg issued an emergency court order (a Temporary Restraining Order or TRO) to temporarily stop removals.
  • Alleged TRO Violations: Concerns arose that deportations occurred despite the emergency order, leading to further court scrutiny. Judge Boasberg expressed his intent to determine if his orders were “deliberately flouted.”
  • Supreme Court Intervention (April 7, 2025): The Supreme Court cancelled the emergency court order. It held that individuals subject to AEA removal are entitled to due process. However, it also ruled that such requests must be filed in the court district where the person is being held, deeming D.C. an improper venue for those held elsewhere.
  • Probable Cause for Contempt (April 16, 2025): Judge Boasberg later found there was probable cause to believe that the government had violated the March 15 emergency order at the time it was in effect, stating the government’s actions demonstrated a “willful disregard” for the court’s order.
  • June 2025 Developments: On June 4, Judge Boasberg issued his opinion. He certified a class for “All noncitizens removed from U.S. custody and transferred to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador.” He granted a preliminary injunction requiring the government to help this group seek legal relief, noting “significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang.” On June 10, the government appealed this order, and the D.C. Circuit Court put the injunction on hold pending the appeal.

Significance and Current Status (as of mid-June 2025): J.G.G. v. Trump clarified that due process rights apply even when the government seeks to apply the Alien Enemies Act. While Judge Boasberg’s recent order offered a path forward for those removed to El Salvador, that relief is now paused. The case remains ongoing, with the appeal of the June 4th preliminary injunction now a central focus.

This case brings to light the tension between national security proclamations and individual rights. When the government invokes a law from 1798, designed for wartime, in today’s context, what do “fair legal proceedings” truly require? How does the legal system balance the government’s stated interest with an individual’s right to be heard?

Abrego Garcia v. Noem: A Case of Return and a New Legal Chapter

The case of Abrego Garcia v. Noem presents a particularly compelling situation where an individual, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was deported despite a prior immigration judge’s order granting him protection from removal.

The Heart of the Matter: Mr. Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, had been granted “withholding of removal” in 2019. However, on March 15, 2025, he was deported to El Salvador, an action the government plainly acknowledged as an “administrative error.”

What the Plaintiffs Argued: The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Abrego Garcia’s deportation violated:

  • The law that allows for “withholding of removal” protection.
  • The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of fair legal proceedings (both procedural and substantive due process).
  • The Administrative Procedure Act (a law that governs how federal agencies make rules and decisions).

The Trump Administration’s Position: While acknowledging the “administrative error,” the government’s arguments evolved, first claiming little could be done to secure his return, then challenging the court’s authority, and later arguing Mr. Abrego Garcia was a “member of a foreign terrorist organization (MS-13).”

Key Court Actions and Rulings: This case involved dramatic exchanges between the judiciary and the executive, with the District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issuing strong orders for the government to “facilitate” his return, and the Supreme Court refining those orders. The courts sharply criticized the government for its resistance and for “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process.”

Significance and Current Status (as of mid-June 2025): This case became a stark illustration of the judiciary’s role in holding the executive accountable. After months of intense legal battles, a major development occurred.

  • The Return: On June 6, 2025, the government informed the court that it had “successfully facilitated Abrego Garcia’s return” to the United States.
  • A New Legal Battle: Upon his return, Mr. Abrego Garcia faced a new human smuggling indictment in a Tennessee federal court. This new prosecution reportedly caused internal disagreement, leading to the resignation of the criminal section chief in the involved U.S. Attorney’s office.

The original civil case that fought for his return is still technically ongoing, but the government now intends to seek its dismissal, arguing that since he has been returned, the case is resolved (“moot”).

This case raises questions about accountability. If the government acknowledges an “administrative error” of this magnitude, what does it mean to make things right? Does returning an individual, only for them to face new, never-before mentioned criminal charges, fulfill the spirit of the court’s orders? What are the implications if court orders appear to be met with prolonged resistance?

D.B.U. v. Trump: Echoes of Due Process Questions in a Separate District

The case of D.B.U. v. Trump, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, mirrors many of the concerns raised in J.G.G. v. Trump, challenging the March 15, 2025 Presidential Proclamation and use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The Heart of the Matter: Brought by two Venezuelan men detained in Colorado, this class action lawsuit argued that the Trump Administration’s use of the AEA was an attempt to circumvent normal removal procedures and deport Venezuelan nationals without fair legal proceedings.

What the Plaintiffs Argued: Similar to J.G.G., the plaintiffs alleged violations of:

  • The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
  • The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act
  • The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of fair legal procedures.
  • They sought their release from detention through a formal request for a court to review the lawfulness of their detention.

The Government’s Position: While the government’s actions, such as appealing court orders, indicate a defense of their authority under the Alien Enemies Act, the specific details of their arguments in D.B.U. v. Trump are not as fully detailed in publicly available information as in the other cases.

Key Court Actions and Rulings:

  • April 2025: The District Court issued an emergency order (TRO) temporarily halting removals. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump Administration’s request to pause this order, importantly “finding that the government had not made the required irreparable-injury showing.”
  • May 6, 2025: The District Court granted a more lasting preliminary injunction and officially recognized the plaintiffs as a class. 

Significance and Current Status (as of May 2025): D.B.U. v. Trump demonstrates that the legal challenges to the AEA’s use were not confined to one court. The rulings in Colorado signal that multiple federal districts were scrutinizing the government’s actions. This case is ongoing, with the preliminary injunction in effect.

The U.S. Constitution uses the word “person” when discussing rights, not just “citizen.” What does this mean when individuals who are not citizens find themselves in the U.S. legal system? How should courts interpret laws written in a vastly different historical era when applying them today? Should old laws have provisions for periodic review or even automatic expiration after a certain number of years, especially when the world in which they were created is so different from our own?

Unpacking the Threads: Due Process, Executive Power, and Timeless Questions

These three cases, while distinct in their details and trajectories, weave together common threads that touch upon the very fabric of the U.S. legal and constitutional system. The idea of fair legal proceedings (procedural due process) is central—the principle that the government must follow fair procedures and respect individuals’ rights before depriving them of life, liberty, or property. This includes removal proceedings. 

While much of the litigation focuses on procedural due process — the right to fair hearings and judicial oversight — these cases also hint at substantive due process concerns: whether certain exercises of government power (even if following procedure) are simply constitutionally impermissible in their nature or purpose.

The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, a law born from a period of international tension in 1798, in the context of 21st-century immigration challenges, forces us to ask:

  • How do we balance the government’s asserted need to act decisively on national security or public safety concerns with the fundamental right of every individual to fair treatment under the law?
  • What are the appropriate limits on executive authority, especially when that authority is derived from laws passed in vastly different historical circumstances?
  • What role should the judiciary play in overseeing executive actions? What happens when the executive acts in defiance of court orders?
  • When legal processes lead to outcomes described as “administrative errors” with severe human consequences, what does accountability look like?

These cases are not just abstract legal discussions. They involve real people, families, and fundamental questions about justice and the rule of law. As they continue to unfold, they will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing dialogue about how the United States defines and protects rights in an ever-changing world. The answers to the questions they raise will have wide-ranging implications.

If you have any further questions please contact us at:

info@eoimmigration.com

(305) 391-2105