Washington, D.C., May 16, 2025 — A federal judge in Pennsylvania has become the first in the United States to support former President Donald Trump’s controversial use of a centuries-old wartime law to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, marking a rare legal victory in his ongoing immigration crackdown.
Judge Stephanie L. Haines, a Trump appointee to the U.S. District Court, ruled that the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — a law historically invoked during wartime — could be legally applied to expel foreign nationals deemed threats to national security, even in the absence of an official war or military invasion.
The ruling opens the door for summary deportations of migrants accused of gang affiliation within her jurisdiction in western Pennsylvania, and it could potentially influence future appeals if the matter reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, currently dominated by conservative justices.
The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times in U.S. history — during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II — and has never been activated during peacetime until Trump’s March 2025 order. His administration invoked the law to target alleged members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a violent Venezuelan gang he has labelled a foreign terrorist organization.
Trump argued that the presence of TdA in the U.S. constituted a “de facto invasion” with links to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro — a claim U.S. intelligence agencies have refuted, saying there is no evidence of Maduro’s direct involvement.
Judge Haines pushed back against arguments that the law requires a formal invasion by a foreign military. “The Act does not require an invasion or predatory incursion,” she wrote. “Is a Foreign Terrorist Organization like TdA not the modern equivalent of a pirate or robber?”
Read More :U.S Supreme Court to consider Trump executive order on birthright citizenship
However, while she upheld the use of the act, she also found the Trump administration’s enforcement procedures constitutionally inadequate. The judge ruled that migrants must be given 21 days’ notice in a language they understand and the right to appeal their deportation in court — contradicting government claims that only 24-hour notice was sufficient.
Her decision diverges from rulings in New York, South Texas, West Texas, and Colorado, where federal judges previously concluded the use of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful under current conditions.
Legal analysts suggest that the Pennsylvania ruling could be a pivotal development if the administration seeks to defend the act’s use at the Supreme Court level.
As the political debate around immigration intensifies ahead of the 2026 midterms, this ruling is expected to galvanize support and opposition alike, while putting the rarely used 18th-century law squarely back into the spotlight of American constitutional discourse.
