Texas Judge Halts Venezuelan Deportations Using 18th-Century Law

(DailyChive.com) – In a surprising judicial decision, a Texas federal judge halted the deportation of Venezuelans by invoking an 18th-century wartime law.

At a Glance

A Texas judge ruled against the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act.
The court found the Act’s invocation to deport Venezuelans “unlawful” under the President’s proclamation.
The Alien Enemies Act has rarely been used, with the last instance being during WWII.
This ruling strengthens judicial oversight over executive decisions on immigration.

The Judicial Ruling

A federal judge based in Texas blocked deportations of Venezuelans by leaning on the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration invoked this act to deport alleged gang members accused of posing a threat to the nation. However, the judge deemed this application unlawful, stating that the President’s interpretation of AEA was beyond its intended scope.

U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., who was appointed by Trump in 2018, argued that the statute’s plain meaning contradicted the President’s actions. He emphasized the judiciary’s crucial role in checking executive power, particularly in immigration matters, where humanitarian principles are at play.

The Broader Implications

Judge Rodriguez’s ruling spotlights the boundaries between judicial and executive authority. His ruling is the first formal permanent injunction against using the AEA in this manner. This decision reflects continuing disputes over immigration enforcement and underscores the judiciary’s role in interpreting historical statutes.

“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, underscoring the decision’s legal significance. But “the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.” – U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr.

This legal battle initially began with the ACLU filing suit against Trump’s proclamation. The Supreme Court’s previous rulings emphasized providing alleged gang members with a reasonable time to contest their deportations, further casting doubts on the President’s approach.

Looking Ahead

With the potential appeal heading to the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the outcome might influence how historical statutes are applied in contemporary immigration law. The ruling also laid grounds for discussing the relevancy of such laws in today’s technologically advanced and politically complex landscape.

“Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, hinting at the legal community’s view on the ruling.

As this case unfolds further, it may set critical precedents for judicial guidance in future immigration cases, particularly those involving crises of humanitarian significance and constitutional checks on executive power.