Appeals court dismisses Trump’s claim of immigration ‘invasion’ in recent ruling.
A conservative appellate court has decisively dismissed former President Donald Trump’s assertion that undocumented immigration constitutes an “invasion” of the United States, undermining a central legal foundation of his mass deportation strategy. The ruling emerged from a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that a law established in 1798 does not empower Trump to execute the swift deportation of suspected members of a Venezuelan criminal gang without granting them due process.
This judgment marks a significant obstacle for the former president’s rigorous immigration policies. However, the conservative-majority Supreme Court may ultimately influence the final outcome of this case. Legal experts have voiced their approval of the ruling, highlighting its limitations on the Trump administration’s interpretation of emergency powers related to immigration enforcement.
The appellate court’s 2-1 decision resonated with advocates for immigrant rights, affirming lower court opinions that the undocumented immigrants allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang do not fit the characterization of an “invasion or predatory incursion” as stipulated by the Alien Enemies Act. This act had previously been invoked by the Trump administration to justify the deportation of hundreds of individuals deemed to be linked with the gang, executed in March without the customary legal procedures that include presenting evidence of gang affiliation.
The deportees were sent to a notorious maximum-security prison in El Salvador, facilitated by a financial arrangement with the U.S. government. Notably, in July, more than 250 deported migrants were returned to Venezuela, highlighting potential governmental overreach and procedural failures.
In a related incident, Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia was mistakenly included in the mass deportation despite existing court orders prohibiting his removal. He was later returned to the United States and faced charges of human trafficking, which he denies.
Historically, the Alien Enemies Act had been invoked only three times in U.S. history, during declared wars, including the War of 1812 and both World Wars. The Trump administration contended that the judiciary should not second-guess its determinations regarding national security threats posed by gangs such as Tren de Aragua.
The ruling not only halts deportations from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi but also garners mixed reactions from the judiciary. While Judge Leslie Southwick and Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez supported the decision, Judge Andrew Oldham dissented, advocating for presidential discretion in matters of foreign relations and national security.
Moving forward, this ruling may be contested either by seeking a full hearing in the Fifth Circuit or through an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is anticipated to have the final say on this contentious immigration issue.
