The full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a challenge to President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act after all three named plaintiffs were removed from the country under separate immigration authority, leaving unresolved the broader question of whether the wartime law can be used against alleged Venezuelan gang members.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal appeals court has dismissed a closely watched challenge to the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, ruling that the case became moot after the three Venezuelan plaintiffs at its center were deported through a different legal process.
The en banc 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not decide whether President Donald Trump lawfully invoked the centuries-old wartime statute against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
Instead, the court concluded Thursday that it no longer had a live dispute before it because none of the three named petitioners remained in the United States.
“The Supreme Court remanded this case to us when the three named petitioners were still in the country. But we have since learned that the government has removed them. Given this change, we conclude that the appeal is moot,” Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote for the court.
The three men were removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act rather than under the Alien Enemies Act, Elrod said.
That distinction proved decisive.
Because the plaintiffs had already been deported through another legal authority, the appeals court said it could no longer grant them meaningful relief in the case challenging use of the Alien Enemies Act.
“Given the lack of any named petitioners to whom we could grant relief in this appeal, and given that this case has never and does not now feature any class, we conclude that the appeal is moot,” Elrod wrote.
The litigation grew out of the Trump administration’s March 2025 effort to deport more than 100 Venezuelan nationals accused of gang affiliations under the Alien Enemies Act.
The statute dates to the 18th century and provides the executive branch with extraordinary authority involving nationals of hostile foreign powers during wartime or related circumstances. Before the Trump administration invoked it, the law had last been used during World War II.
The administration’s attempt to apply the statute to alleged Tren de Aragua members quickly generated litigation over both the scope of the law and the process afforded to migrants facing removal.
Critics argued that the government was attempting to deport Venezuelans without sufficient opportunity to challenge their designation or removal before being sent out of the country.
The Supreme Court intervened in May 2025.
The justices concluded that Venezuelan migrants targeted for removal under the wartime authority had not been given enough time or information to contest the government’s action.
The high court temporarily extended an injunction preventing additional removals under the Alien Enemies Act and sent the case back to the 5th Circuit to determine how much notice and opportunity detainees must receive before they can be deported under the statute.
That remand initially placed the appeals court in position to address significant procedural and legal questions surrounding Trump’s invocation of the act.
A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit went further in September 2025.
The panel sided with immigrant-rights attorneys and lower court judges who argued that the Alien Enemies Act was not intended to apply to criminal organizations such as Tren de Aragua.
That ruling would have imposed a significant limitation on the administration’s ability to use the wartime statute against alleged gang members.
The decision did not remain in force.
The full appeals court subsequently agreed to rehear the matter en banc, automatically vacating the three-judge panel’s opinion.
Before the full court could resolve the merits of the dispute, however, the government removed all three named petitioners under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Thursday’s ruling consequently ended the appeal without resolving whether Trump’s original use of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful.
That leaves several of the central constitutional and statutory questions surrounding the policy unanswered by the 5th Circuit.
The Supreme Court’s injunction restricting further removals under the Alien Enemies Act also remains in place.
Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued the case, emphasized that point following the dismissal.
“The Supreme Court’s injunction barring the further use of the Alien Enemies Act remains in place, which is essential because there are still people at risk of being wrongly removed under the act without due process,” Gelernt said.
He also argued that the procedural dismissal should not be interpreted as approval of the administration’s legal theory.
“The Fifth Circuit decision also doesn’t alter the fact that courts have soundly rejected the use of this wartime authority during peacetime, including a panel of the Fifth Circuit,” Gelernt said.
The vacated panel ruling no longer has precedential effect because the full court agreed to rehear the case, but the broader legal dispute over whether the Alien Enemies Act can be used against Tren de Aragua remains unresolved.
Thursday’s decision therefore represents a procedural victory for neither side on the central issue.
The Trump administration avoided an en banc ruling that might have restricted its interpretation of the law, while challengers retained the benefit of the Supreme Court injunction that currently limits additional removals under the statute.
Any definitive appellate ruling on the president’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act will now have to arise through another case involving plaintiffs who remain subject to possible removal and therefore present a live controversy for the courts to decide.
Original article
Comments