Another Federal Judge Halts Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act
A federal judge in West Texas has joined others around the country in temporarily halting the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act.
U.S. District Judge David Briones, based in El Paso, issued a ruling on Friday ordering the release of a couple accused of affiliation with a Venezuelan gang, according to the Associated Press.
Briones stated that government attorneys “have not demonstrated they have any lawful basis” to continue detaining the pair under allegations tied to the alien enemies statute.
The individuals in question are alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a group the Trump administration has labeled as a foreign terrorist organization.
Former President Donald Trump has invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which permits the deportation of noncitizens aged 14 or older from nations engaged in conflict with the United States. Shortly after assuming office, Trump designated Tren de Aragua and MS-13 as terrorist organizations and has sought to expel their members under this historic law.
Earlier in the month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stop to the deportation of Venezuelans detained in northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act.
The Court also ruled that those targeted for deportation under Trump’s order are entitled to a federal hearing and must be granted “a reasonable time” to contest their removal, as reported by the AP.
Judge Briones’ decision specifically impacts Venezuelan immigrants in federal custody within his West Texas jurisdiction. Similarly, federal judges in Colorado, South Texas, and New York have issued comparable rulings, the newswire added.
Additionally, Briones mandated that the government must provide 21 days' advance notice before deporting anyone within his jurisdiction, a sharp contrast to the government’s current practice of providing only 12 hours’ notice.
This El Paso ruling arrives amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and local officials over the president’s aggressive immigration policies—a central theme of his 2024 campaign. It coincided with the FBI’s arrest of a Milwaukee judge accused of aiding an individual in evading immigration authorities.
Briones, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, emphasized that “due process requirements for the removal of noncitizens are long established” under the Immigration and Nationality Act and upheld by prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
He further noted that “there is no doubt the Executive Branch’s unprecedented peacetime use of wartime power has caused chaos and uncertainty for individual petitions as well as the judicial branch in how to manage and evaluate the Executive’s claims of Tren de Aragua membership, and the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act as a whole.”
The couple at the center of the case—Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes and Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia—had been granted temporary protected status after crossing into the United States from Mexico in October 2022. Their protected status was rescinded on April 1.
They were detained on April 16 at the El Paso airport while preparing to return to their residence in Washington, D.C., where they live with their three children. Their trip to Texas had been for a pretrial hearing on April 14 related to their ongoing removal proceedings, the AP reported.
Court filings indicate their case has been postponed until June 23, and the couple has been released on bail pending further proceedings.
Meanwhile, on Friday, attorneys for the Trump administration petitioned a federal appeals court to block a lower court’s contempt proceedings against the government. They argued that Chief District Judge James Boasberg’s intervention in deportations to El Salvador has sparked a “needless constitutional confrontation.”
Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign asserted that Judge Boasberg was interfering with presidential authority over foreign affairs by mandating the return of hundreds of Venezuelan gang suspects and threatening criminal penalties, according to the Washington Times.
Ensign also maintained that a contempt charge was inappropriate, as Boasberg’s original directive was so unclear that even after a month, the involved parties continue to debate its interpretation.
“The district court’s criminal contempt order invites needless constitutional confrontation,” Ensign argued in a filing submitted to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.