In a major legal setback for President Trump, a federal appeals court on Wednesday declined to lift a lower court’s order that blocks the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport migrants. The 2-1 ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals effectively upholds U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s injunction, dealing a serious blow to Trump’s controversial deportation strategy.
The Justice Department had pushed for an immediate reversal, arguing that Judge Boasberg’s order infringed on the president’s authority to act decisively on matters of national security. But the appeals court didn’t agree.
At the center of the case is the administration’s attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 18th-century law that allows for the removal of individuals from hostile foreign nations—but only during a declared war or formal invasion. Trump and his team claim that the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua constitutes an “invasion,” justifying the law’s use to deport alleged gang members to El Salvador’s notorious prison system.
However, the court pushed back. Judge Karen Henderson, a conservative appointee of President George H.W. Bush, rejected the administration’s argument in her concurring opinion. “The theme that rings true is that an invasion is a military affair, not one of migration,” Henderson wrote, undercutting the legal foundation of Trump’s claim.
Henderson joined Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, to form the majority. While Millett agreed with the outcome, she based her vote on the court’s lack of jurisdiction at this early stage, given the temporary nature of Boasberg’s order. Both judges emphasized that the issue isn’t settled and pointed out that Boasberg is expected to rule soon on whether to issue a longer-term injunction.
Still, the ruling represents a significant loss for Trump, who has repeatedly emphasized aggressive immigration enforcement as central to his second-term agenda. The administration had hoped to use the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations without lengthy legal proceedings—something this ruling now places on hold.
Henderson, despite opposing the immediate use of the law in this context, left the door open for the government to make its case later. “The government will have ample opportunity to prove its case, and its evidence should be afforded the requisite deference due the President’s national security judgments,” she wrote.
But for now, the appeals court’s decision marks a serious setback for Trump’s immigration playbook, and critics are calling it a clear example of the judiciary placing constitutional limits on executive overreach. The ruling also intensifies scrutiny on the administration’s broader legal strategies, especially as it continues to test rarely invoked laws in pursuit of hardline policy goals.