In The News: The Alien Enemies Act and How it May Affect Immigrants
In March 2025, the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the deportation of individuals alleged to be members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. This action has ignited significant legal and political debates regarding the application of this centuries-old law and its alignment with contemporary constitutional protections.
Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act: On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, asserting that Tren de Aragua was conducting "irregular warfare" against the United States. This proclamation authorized the expedited deportation of individuals suspected of affiliation with the gang without standard due process procedures. This action led to the removal of over 260 individuals to El Salvador, where they were detained in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). These deportations proceeded despite a federal judge's order to halt them, raising significant legal and human rights concerns.
Judicial Challenges and Rulings: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a class-action lawsuit, J.G.G. v. Trump, challenging the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order halting further deportations and mandated the return of those already deported for due process hearings. Despite this order, the administration continued with the deportations, leading to allegations of contempt of court.
On March 24, Judge Boasberg ruled that individuals targeted under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to due process, including the opportunity to challenge their designation as "alien enemies." He emphasized that the Constitution's due process protections extend to all individuals within the United States, regardless of their immigration status.
Appeals Court Proceedings: The administration appealed Boasberg's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. During oral arguments, Judge Patricia Millett expressed concern over the lack of due process afforded to the deportees, remarking that "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here". On March 26, 2025, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the block on these deportations, emphasizing the necessity of due process for the individuals affected.
Administration's Response and Controversial Actions: In defiance of court orders, the administration continued deportations, arguing that the judge's oral remarks were not binding. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's visit to the Salvadoran prison housing the deported individuals, where she posed with detainees, has been widely criticized as provocative and insensitive.
Human Rights Concerns: Human rights organizations have raised alarms about the conditions in CECOT, citing reports of severe overcrowding, inadequate food, and instances of torture. Legal experts argue that deporting individuals to such conditions without due process violates both U.S. and international laws.
Further complicating the issue is the fact that it is now been widely contended that at least up to one third (1/3) of all people deported may not have been gang members at all and had no due process to fight that allegation. Several such examples include:
Francisco Javier García Casique
Francisco, a 24-year-old Venezuelan hairdresser, was deported to El Salvador despite lacking any criminal history. His family and legal representatives have vehemently disputed the U.S. administration's claims of his gang affiliation. Upon arrival in El Salvador, he was featured in a video released by Salvadoran authorities, depicting him among shackled prisoners in a notorious prison. His family asserts his innocence and is actively advocating for his release.
Jerce, a 36-year-old Venezuelan soccer player, legally entered the United States in 2024 and applied for asylum, alleging persecution in Venezuela. Despite having a pending court appearance scheduled for April, he was deported to El Salvador without prior notice. His deportation was reportedly based on a tattoo resembling the Real Madrid soccer team logo, which authorities allegedly misinterpreted as a gang symbol. Legal experts and human rights advocates have criticized this action as a misapplication of immigration enforcement.
There’s also the case of Andry, a gay 31 year old Venezuelan makeup artist seeking asylum in the U.S. His attorney did not release his full name due to fears that he would be targeted in the El Salvadorian prison he was sent to. Andry was wrongly detained by ICE last year when he sought asylum over persecution for being gay and his opposition to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro because immigration officials thought his tattoos linked him to Tren de Aragua, according to tweets and media appearances by his attorney. Andry is among multiple migrants deported to El Salvador whose attorneys and family members have said have no gang affiliation or even criminal records, and took the appropriate legal steps to seek asylum in the U.S.
Use of Tattoos as Evidence
Concerns have been raised regarding the criteria used to determine gang affiliation, particularly the reliance on tattoos. Reports indicate that individuals with common or innocuous tattoos, such as crowns, flowers, or soccer-related imagery, have been labeled as gang members without substantial evidence. Legal representatives argue that these associations are unfounded and have led to wrongful deportations.
Current Status: The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and the subsequent deportations have sparked intense legal battles and public debate. These cases underscore significant issues within the current immigration enforcement practices, particularly the potential for misidentification and the violation of due process rights. The courts have thus far upheld the necessity of due process, but the administration's actions have raised concerns about adherence to judicial authority and the protection of human rights. The situation continues to evolve as further legal proceedings and policy discussions unfold.