Washington, D.C. — A federal appellate court has temporarily blocked the use of a centuries-old wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals, siding with plaintiffs who raised concerns about due process rights.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to lift a lower court’s ruling that paused the deportations. The ruling comes in a case that centers on the Alien Enemies Act, a statute originally passed in 1798 and rarely invoked in modern legal proceedings.
The three-judge panel—Judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Justin Walker—agreed to review the matter on an expedited basis after concerns were raised over how the law was being applied and whether constitutional protections were being overlooked.
During oral arguments, Judge Patricia Millett expressed particular concern that those targeted for removal may not have been given adequate time to pursue legal protections such as habeas corpus petitions. The exchange reflected the broader legal debate about whether the law, written in a different era, aligns with today’s standards for fairness and due process.
Legal observers noted that the appellate court’s ruling focuses primarily on procedural issues, such as how the Department of Justice handled communications with the lower court and whether proper steps were taken before executing deportation orders.
“This case is less about the actual law being used, and more about how it’s being applied,” said legal analyst Xochitl Hinojosa in a televised interview. “The court wasn’t ruling on the Alien Enemies Act itself but rather on the way the Department of Justice interacted with the courts during this process.”
The Justice Department, according to reports, resisted requests for additional information from the district court and instead filed a direct appeal, raising questions about transparency and compliance with standard legal procedures.
Analysts believe the case could eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if further rulings continue to limit the federal government’s deportation powers under historical statutes. For now, however, the immediate legal question remains focused on process and timing—particularly whether individuals at risk of deportation were given fair opportunity to defend their legal status.
In a separate interview, Attorney General Pam Bondi voiced frustration with the lower court’s decision, suggesting that federal judges should be cautious when weighing in on matters involving foreign policy and immigration. “This is a legal disagreement over jurisdiction and authority,” she said. “Our goal is to follow the law, but we also need clarity from the courts.”
WATCH:
As the case develops, it represents a rare moment where an obscure 18th-century law intersects with modern immigration policy, raising complex legal and constitutional questions. Whether the law remains a viable tool for immigration enforcement in the future may ultimately depend on how higher courts choose to interpret its relevance in the current era.