District Federal Judge Issues Another Ruling On Deportation Policy

In a significant legal rebuke to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement strategy, U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. ruled Thursday that the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) — a statute dating back to 1798 — cannot be used to deport Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador on the basis of alleged ties to foreign terrorist organizations like Tren de Aragua.

The administration’s argument hinged on the claim that Tren de Aragua (TdA), a notoriously violent Venezuelan prison gang, constitutes a foreign enemy force that is "perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." Based on that classification, the administration sought to invoke the AEA to target and deport all Venezuelan nationals aged 14 and older affiliated with TdA — so long as they were not citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Judge Rodriguez rejected that interpretation, writing that the AEA applies strictly in the context of "armed, organized attack," something he found the gang’s actions did not meet. He concluded:

“The Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful.”

Moreover, Rodriguez found that the Executive Branch lacked the legal authority under the AEA to detain, transfer, or deport individuals in this context, under the rationale provided.

However, this wasn’t a full-throated judicial blockade. Rodriguez deliberately left an open door for the administration to try again — but under stricter legal standards. The court said it would define what counts as an “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” but left the factual determination to the Executive Branch — a deference rooted in the separation of powers.

This means that if the administration can present new evidence showing that Tren de Aragua's activity includes direct physical entry into U.S. territory — and that such activity meets the court’s definition of an invasion — then the AEA might be lawfully invoked in future actions.

This case isn’t just about a specific deportation policy — it touches on much broader constitutional questions:

• Can the executive branch repurpose an antiquated national defense statute to manage modern criminal migration?

• Where is the line between terrorism and organized crime?

• And to what extent can courts second-guess or restrain a president’s interpretation of national threats?

These questions go far beyond Venezuelan gangs. They cut into the heart of how immigration enforcement, executive power, and national security intersect — and who gets to define the battlefield.