On May 1, 2025, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a Trump appointee in the Southern District of Texas, delivered a significant ruling against the Trump administration, declaring its use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan nationals unlawful. The administration had invoked the 18th-century wartime law in March to target alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, claiming they were conducting “irregular warfare” against the U.S. Rodriguez, in a 36-page decision, rejected this application, stating that the Act applies only during a declared war or an armed, organized attack—conditions not met by the gang’s activities. This marked the first definitive ruling on the merits of Trump’s use of the Act, permanently barring deportations of Venezuelans in the Southern District of Texas under this law.
 

The ruling came after months of legal battles, including earlier temporary blocks by other judges, such as U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who had halted initial deportations on March 15. Despite these orders, the administration had deported over 130 Venezuelan men to a notorious prison in El Salvador, prompting criticism for bypassing due process. Rodriguez emphasized that the executive branch cannot unilaterally redefine the Act’s terms to justify peacetime deportations, pushing back against the administration’s argument that its actions were beyond judicial review. He underscored the judiciary’s role in interpreting Congressional statutes, ensuring that the Act’s historical wartime context—previously invoked during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II—was not distorted for modern immigration enforcement.
 

This decision poses a challenge to Trump’s broader immigration crackdown, which has relied on the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations without hearings, a move critics argue undermines constitutional protections. While Rodriguez’s ruling is limited to the Southern District of Texas, it may influence other ongoing cases nationwide. The administration still holds detainees in regions like Colorado and Nevada, and could use alternative immigration laws for deportations, but the precedent set by Rodriguez’s injunction highlights the judiciary’s resistance to executive overreach. As legal scholars note, the ruling reinforces that immigration challenges, even involving alleged gang members, do not equate to wartime invasions, curbing the administration’s attempt to stretch a historical law into a tool for mass deportation.