In a case that’s already igniting fierce debate across legal and political spheres, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments Monday over whether a lower court judge overstepped in halting the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Venezuelan nationals—an effort backed by a controversial resurrection of a law passed during the 18th century.
At the heart of this battle lies the Trump administration’s invocation of a 1798 wartime statute—a rarely used and broadly interpreted authority passed in the fraught days of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The administration used this legal relic to deport Venezuelan nationals, some allegedly linked to the violent transnational gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), a group blamed for a series of crimes that have sparked national security concerns. The emergency deportation order, slated for 14 days, was cut short after D.C. District Judge James Boasberg intervened, halting removals and demanding accountability.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, ordered a halt to deportations after a plane carrying hundreds of migrants—many of them Venezuelan nationals—landed in El Salvador mere hours after his initial ruling. The court then issued a flurry of directives, ordering the administration to disclose detailed information about the deportation flights: passenger counts, flight paths, departure and landing times, and bases of origin. Boasberg’s order left little ambiguity—he wanted names, numbers, and answers.
ALIEN ENEMIES ACT: @elonmusk weighs in on today’s explosive deportation appeals court hearing, as the DOJ escalates its showdown with an Obama-appointed judge accused of blocking @realDonaldTrump‘s signature vow to remove criminal illegals from the U.S. pic.twitter.com/43ftp9qAOT
— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 24, 2025
The Trump administration responded with resistance. In court filings, it decried Boasberg’s demands as a “massive, unauthorized imposition” on executive power. It argued the judiciary was intruding on the Executive Branch’s constitutionally protected prerogative to handle national security and immigration enforcement. When pressed for specifics, the administration delayed, citing national security risks and signaling a possible invocation of the state secrets privilege.
By Thursday evening, Boasberg’s patience had thinned. In a sharply worded rebuke, he accused the government of “evading its obligations,” rejecting a brief six-paragraph declaration from an ICE regional director as “woefully insufficient.” The ICE statement merely noted that Cabinet officials were considering whether to invoke privilege, but offered none of the details the court had demanded.
LAWFARE: @GreggJarrett breaks down how the liberal judge is defying the Constitution, arguing that under the Alien Enemies Act, @realDonaldTrump has full authority to deport criminal illegals — and no court, not even the Supreme Court, has the power to overrule him. pic.twitter.com/wVJxlFEcbo
— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 24, 2025
The stage is now set for a high-stakes showdown before a panel of three judges—two appointed by Republican presidents, one by a Democrat. The question before them: Did Judge Boasberg overreach by blocking the deportations and demanding detailed operational information? Or did the Trump administration unlawfully sidestep judicial authority and transparency under the guise of national security?
Stephen Miller on CNN talking about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
Absolute must-see TV.pic.twitter.com/aDd2jPvkfq
— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) March 17, 2025
