In a ruling that’s already shaking the foundations of presidential authority, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from immediately deporting Venezuelan nationals accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang under the rarely-used 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The decision now forces the administration to grant these migrants individual hearings to determine whether they truly fall under the law’s scope.
This ruling, unsurprisingly, triggered a political and legal earthquake. Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, didn’t mince words, calling the decision “unconstitutional.” And many legal analysts agree: this may be the beginning of a full-fledged constitutional battle over the president’s wartime powers—particularly when national security, immigration, and foreign criminal syndicates converge.
Let’s be clear: the Alien Enemies Act is not an obscure statute. It’s a wartime tool, crafted during America’s earliest years and meant to address the very situation we’re now facing—a “predatory incursion” by foreign agents. According to the plain text of the law, if the U.S. is under threat and the president issues a proclamation, he has sweeping power to detain or deport foreign nationals affiliated with a hostile force.
The Trump administration did exactly that. Facing an unrelenting wave of violent activity by the Tren de Aragua—a transnational criminal organization originating in Venezuela and now deeply entrenched in American cities—Trump declared their presence a direct threat. Members of the gang had reportedly entered during Biden’s term, shielded by open-border policies championed by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
More than 200 Venezuelan nationals tied to the gang were already deported to a detention facility in El Salvador. Now, Judge Boasberg’s ruling halts that effort, arguing that these individuals—many of whom deny gang affiliation—deserve a chance to contest their deportations in court.
What’s the practical outcome of this ruling? It shifts the burden away from the executive branch and toward a judicial system already buckling under the weight of migration-related litigation. It effectively grants gang suspects a legal foothold—something the Alien Enemies Act was explicitly designed to bypass in moments of national threat.
The Trump administration isn’t backing down. It has filed motions to remove Boasberg and another judge, Beryl Howell, from similar cases—extraordinary requests almost never seen in federal court. President Trump has gone further, calling on the Senate to consider impeachment proceedings against Boasberg and calling out the judiciary for what he described as political sabotage masquerading as legal oversight.
BREAKING: Chief Judge Boasberg denies the federal government’s effort to vacate the TROs in the Alien Enemies Act case, finding that people the government claims are subject to the proclamation at least have a right to “individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies… pic.twitter.com/CJtekn9wPR
— Chris “Law Dork” Geidner (@chrisgeidner) March 24, 2025
The stakes couldn’t be higher. If Boasberg’s interpretation holds, it would redefine how the Alien Enemies Act can be applied in the modern age. It would also weaken the president’s ability to act decisively in the face of national security threats. The administration argues that this is precisely why the law exists: to provide the executive branch with clear, immediate authority when the courts are too slow—or too political—to act.
As Axios rightly noted, this may be the inflection point in a growing confrontation between the Trump White House and the federal judiciary. And unlike previous legal entanglements, this one isn’t about paperwork or policy delays. It’s about sovereignty, border control, and the future of presidential war powers in a time of asymmetric threats and globalized crime.
For now, the ruling stands. But don’t expect it to last long. The Justice Department is preparing an aggressive appeal, and pressure is mounting on Capitol Hill to rein in judicial activism that interferes with executive action during national emergencies.
