Fifth Circuit: Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations Challenge Moot

• A Fifth Circuit en banc court dismissed a lawsuit challenging President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to detain and remove members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
• The petitioners were removed under regular immigration law rather than the Alien Enemies Act, rendering their appeal moot.
• The ruling highlights the importance of monitoring court decisions and government actions on immigration policies.
• Lawyers should be aware that even if they secure a favorable ruling from a lower court, it may not hold up to scrutiny at higher courts or be superseded by new developments.

So enjoining removal under the AEA would not prevent their removal … the appeal has thus become moot.

A recent ruling by the Fifth Circuit has significant implications for immigration law in the US. On Thursday, the en banc court dismissed a lawsuit brought by three Venezuelan nationals challenging President Donald Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to detain and remove members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The petitioners had argued that the proclamation exceeded the statute and violated due process.

The case began after Trump's March 14, 2025, proclamation invoked the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan citizens 14 or older who are members of Tren de Aragua — a designated foreign terrorist organization — and are not naturalized citizens or lawful permanent residents. The law allows the president to apprehend, detain and remove 'alien enemies' during a declared war or when an 'invasion or predatory incursion' is underway or threatened.

The three petitioners filed a putative class action habeas petition in the Northern District of Texas, but U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix denied their request for a temporary restraining order and class certification.

The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked by President Trump to detain and remove members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The law, dating back to 1798, allows the president to apprehend, detain and remove 'alien enemies' during a declared war or when an 'invasion or predatory incursion' is underway or threatened. However, the Supreme Court has barred removals under the Alien Enemies Act while the case continued, allowing the government to remove people 'under other lawful authorities'.

The Fifth Circuit's ruling highlights the importance of monitoring court decisions and government actions on immigration policies. A change in circumstances can render appeals moot, as seen in this case where the petitioners were removed under regular immigration law rather than the Alien Enemies Act.

Lawyers should be aware that even if they secure a favorable ruling from a lower court, it may not hold up to scrutiny at higher courts or be superseded by new developments.

The Fifth Circuit's dismissal of the Alien Enemies Act deportations challenge as moot has significant implications for immigration law in the US. The ruling highlights the importance of monitoring court decisions and government actions on immigration policies, as a change in circumstances can render appeals moot.

This development also underscores the need for lawyers to be aware of the practical implications of their cases. Even if they secure a favorable ruling from a lower court, it may not hold up to scrutiny at higher courts or be superseded by new developments.

The case is a reminder that immigration law is complex and constantly evolving. Lawyers must stay up-to-date on the latest developments and be prepared to adapt their strategies accordingly.

This development highlights the practical importance of monitoring court decisions and government actions on immigration policies, as a change in circumstances can render appeals moot. Lawyers should be aware that even if they secure a favorable ruling from a lower court, it may not hold up to scrutiny at higher courts or be superseded by new developments.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News