A high-stakes legal battle unfolding in the Tenth Circuit could determine the modern reach of a 227-year-old wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, and shape the future of presidential authority over immigrant detention and deportation. The outcome may turn on whether federal courts will uphold President Donald Trump’s March 2025 proclamation invoking that 1798 law to summarily deport Venezuelan immigrants accused of gang affiliations without conventional due process protections.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is reviewing an emergency request by the federal government to stay a temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. That order halted Alien Enemies Act-related removals from the country, finding that the administration’s procedures likely violated both the statute and the Constitution. At issue is whether the ancient law, enacted about a decade after the Constitution was ratified amid fears of war with France, can be deployed against alleged members of a criminal gang during peacetime, and whether detainees must be given a meaningful opportunity to contest their removal before being expelled.
The case, D.B.U. et al. v. Trump, is widely viewed as the first major test of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. J.G.G., where the Court held that immigrants detained under the Alien Enemies Act must receive “notice . . . that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
The outcome could set a precedent for how far a president may reach in invoking emergency powers to detain and deport immigrants outside of traditional war settings.
A Colonial-Era Law in a Modern Context
The Alien Enemies Act grants the President the authority to detain or remove nationals of a hostile foreign nation during a time of declared war, invasion, or predatory incursion. Historically, the Act has been used sparingly, principally during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, against citizens of nations formally at war with the United States.
In March 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation asserting that Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, was committing an “invasion or predatory incursion” against the United States. The proclamation declared all Venezuelan nationals aged fourteen or older to be subject to detention and removal under the Alien Enemies Act if suspected of gang affiliation.
The administration’s aggressive invocation of the law triggered a wave of litigation across the country. Federal judges in New York and Texas, in addition to the order handed down by Denver-based U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney, issued emergency orders blocking deportations, citing serious concerns about the law’s application and the procedures used to implement it. And the Supreme Court recently blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of all immigrants detained under its authority and held in the federal judicial district in northern Texas.
The Case of D.B.U. et al.
In D.B.U., two Venezuelan nationals detained at the Denver Contract Detention Facility challenged their imminent deportation. Both individuals deny any affiliation with Tren de Aragua and assert that they face persecution if returned to Venezuela. According to court documents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement designated the men for removal based on tattoos, social media posts, and other tenuous evidence. Immigration advocates have criticized this evidence as unreliable and discriminatory.
Judge Sweeney issued a temporary restraining order on April 22. She found, after rejecting several Trump administration jurisdictional arguments, that the petitioners were likely to succeed in showing that the Alien Enemies Act does not authorize deportations during peacetime based on alleged gang affiliations and that the administration’s notice procedures violated due process.
“‘Invasions’ contemplate military action,” Judge Sweeney explained. “And at a bare minimum, ‘invasion’ means more than the Proclamation’s description of TdA’s ‘infiltration,’ ‘irregular warfare,’ and ‘hostile actions’ against the United States – notwithstanding the Proclamation’s conclusory description of ‘the devastating effects of TdA’s invasion.’
“Definitions of “predatory incursion” likewise reveal a mismatch between what the phrase means and what the Proclamation says, she continued. “[T]he predatory nature of an incursion includes a plundering.” The jurist, appointed by former President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., cited a discussion of the term’s meaning by a judge who addressed the J.G.G. case in federal district court.
Her order also criticized the government’s notice practices. According to the record, ICE served detainees with English-language notices giving them as little as twelve hours to express an intent to file a habeas petition and twenty-four hours to actually do so before deportation proceedings would resume. ICE also allowed petitioners to make one phone call. “At bottom, when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process,” Judge Sweeney ruled. “The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.”
The temporary restraining order is in effect, unless put on hold by an appeals court, until May 6.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, which represents the plaintiffs, praised Judge Sweeney’s ruling. “We are thankful that the Court put a stop to the Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to disappear Colorado residents to a Salvadoran mega-prison,” said Tim Macdonald, Legal Director at ACLU of Colorado. “Due process is fundamental to the rule of law in this country, and the government has shown a rampant disregard for this essential civil right. The Trump administration’s desire to evade due process is a threat to all of us.”
Government’s Arguments on Appeal
The Trump administration quickly appealed Judge Sweeney’s ruling and filed an emergency motion to stay the temporary restraining order. In their filings, government attorneys argue that the President’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is valid and necessary to protect national security.
“In all events, the Proclamation and its implementation are clearly lawful,” the government asserted. The administration maintains that its procedures comply with the due process requirements outlined by the Supreme Court. Officials emphasize that detainees are given notice, access to telephones, and opportunities to consult counsel before removal. The government also argues that mass illegal migration and organized criminal activity amount to an “invasion” within the meaning of the statute.
In support of its position, the government filed declarations describing ICE’s use of language interpretation services and affirming that detainees can receive assistance in their native languages.
Related Cases and National Implications
The New York and Texas cases that have arisen from Trump’s Alien Enemies Act decree also show some judicial pushback on the effort to invoke the two century-plus old law. In both of those cases federal judges have enjoined the administration from removing immigrants under the Act without adequate notice and access to judicial review.
In G.F.F. et al. v. Trump, New York-based Judge Lorna Schofield ruled that the government’s procedures likely violated detainees’ constitutional rights. In J.A.V. et al. v. Trump., Texas-based Judge Rolando Olvera found that the summary removal of detainees without meaningful opportunity for habeas review contravened the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. J.G.G.
Even as these cases move forward separately, they share common constitutional stakes. These rulings highlight a broader legal and constitutional issue: the limits of executive power during times of perceived emergency. If the courts uphold the administration’s expansive interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, it could open the door to future uses of that law and other controversial statutes empowering broad presidential power to bypass normal immigration and constitutional protections.
The Tenth Circuit’s decision on the government’s emergency motion is expected imminently. If the appellate court grants a stay, removals under the proclamation could resume immediately, potentially mooting many individual challenges before courts can hear them. If the stay is denied, Judge Sweeney’s temporary restraining order will remain in place while the underlying merits are litigated.
Meanwhile, briefing continues in the district court on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which seeks to extend the protections of the TRO indefinitely during the course of the case.
Ultimately, the D.B.U. case, or one of its counterparts, may return to the U.S. Supreme Court. How the courts resolve these questions could profoundly impact the balance between national security claims and individual rights in the immigration context and define the legacy of the Trump administration’s unprecedented use of the Alien Enemies Act in the modern era.
At its core, the litigation raises two fundamental question: how tightly or loosely America’s oldest laws should be read to constrain or empower its leaders today.
About Author
Be First to Comment