Federal Judge Stephanie Haines has ruled that President Trump’s use of the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, is lawful.
This ruling gives Trump’s administration a strong legal footing to continue its crackdown on criminal foreign nationals accused of serious crimes like human trafficking, drug dealing, and murder.
BREAKING: Federal Judge Stephanie Haines rules that President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport criminal alien gang members is lawful.
Massive win. pic.twitter.com/L1cEjQCtR9
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 13, 2025
An Old Law Meets a Modern Threat
The Alien Enemies Act was passed in 1798. It allows presidents to remove or detain citizens of enemy nations during times of war or invasion.
Trump argued that gangs like Tren de Aragua are part of an invasion at the southern border, threatening public safety and national security.
Judge Haines agreed.
According to Homeland Security, nearly 400 members of Tren de Aragua have been arrested in just a few months.
The gang has been linked to horrific crimes, including the murders of nursing student Laken Riley and 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray.
While the ruling allows deportations to move forward, Judge Haines also ordered safeguards.
Those targeted must get at least 21 days’ notice in their own language and a chance to challenge the decision in court.
A Contrast to Other Courts
This ruling stands in sharp contrast to decisions from federal judges in New York, Colorado, and Texas, who argued that the law was never meant to address criminal gangs or irregular migration.
They insisted the term “invasion” refers strictly to military actions.
But Haines took a different view, recognizing the reality on the ground.
She wrote that organized criminal gangs crossing the southern border present an imminent threat that fits the law’s intent.
Her ruling came in the case of a Venezuelan man identified only as A.S.R., but the legal precedent could impact hundreds more.
Critics Compelled To Critique
Groups like the ACLU are already pushing back.
They argue the ruling opens the door to overreach and could result in innocent people being wrongly deported.
They also warn it could set a dangerous precedent for future presidents to use immigration laws in ways they say go beyond their original purpose.
They plan to appeal the decision, setting the stage for what could be a Supreme Court fight.
The Brighter Side
Supporters say Judge Haines’ decision is both a victory for public safety and an important affirmation of presidential authority in matters of national security.
Many argue that for too long, courts and advocacy groups have tied the hands of law enforcement when it comes to immigration enforcement.
This ruling helps put the focus back where it belongs: on protecting American communities from violent criminals.
The ruling is also seen as a reminder that the executive branch has both the duty and the power to act decisively in times of crisis, even when activist judges or advocacy groups disagree.
Moving Forward
Judge Haines’ ruling doesn’t end the legal battle, but it does give the Trump administration momentum to continue its deportation efforts.
And it sends a clear message: protecting the safety of American citizens comes first.
This is a beautiful example of using existing laws, not new bureaucracies, to address urgent threats.
It also shows that, even in today’s divided courts, judges can still rule based on the plain meaning of the law—and the real-world consequences of failing to enforce it.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
