Did judge award trump wartime under the 1798
Executive summary
A single federal judge did not “award” President Trump the wartime authority under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; instead, the federal courts produced a series of conflicting rulings — an initial district-court temporary block, an emergency U.S. Supreme Court order allowing enforcement while litigation continues, and later district rulings that both reaffirmed limits and, in some cases, found the administration’s use unlawful — leaving the question of legality unresolved [1] [2] [3].
1. The first judicial check: a district judge halted immediate deportations
On March 15 a federal judge issued an emergency temporary restraining order that barred the administration from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to carry out deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members, explicitly pausing the summary removals the White House had begun after announcing a proclamation invoking the wartime statute [1] [4].
2. The Supreme Court’s interim decision: permitted enforcement, not a merits ruling
Less than a month later the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5–4 order, lifted the district judge’s TRO and allowed the administration to proceed with deportations while the underlying litigation continues — a procedural, emergency intervention that enabled enforcement “for now” but did not adjudicate whether the Act’s use here is lawful on the merits [2] [5] [6].
3. Why the high court’s move is not the same as “awarding” wartime power
That emergency granting of relief by the Supreme Court was grounded in procedural considerations and the extraordinary context of emergency appeals; multiple outlets and litigants emphasize the court did not resolve the constitutional or statutory questions, and lower-court challenges continued after the order [7] [2] [8].
4. Continued litigation and split rulings in lower courts
Even after the Supreme Court’s temporary intervention, judges in different jurisdictions continued to issue divergent decisions — some reaffirming blocks on deportations under the Act, others setting limits or requiring notice and opportunity to challenge removals — and at least one district judge later ruled that the administration’s invocation was unlawful and entered a broader injunction against further deportations under the statute [9] [10] [3].
5. The core legal dispute: wartime statute applied in peacetime against nonstate actors
At the heart of the litigation is an interpretive fight: the Alien Enemies Act was written for declared wars and “invasions” by foreign states; the administration contends that gang activity rising from Venezuela constitutes a predatory incursion that can trigger the statute, while challengers — including the ACLU and Democracy Forward — say using this centuries-old wartime power to deport nonstate actors in peacetime unlawfully circumvents immigration protections and due process [1] [7] [8].
6. Stakes and practical effects: flights, due process, and venue battles
Practical flashpoints have included whether deportation flights that left U.S. airspace had to return after court orders, whether targeted noncitizens receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to contest removals, and procedural fights over proper venue — issues that shaped emergency orders and the Supreme Court’s limited interventions even as the substantive constitutional questions remain unresolved [2] [7] [8].
7. Bottom line — did a judge award Trump wartime authority under 1798?
No judge issued a definitive grant of wartime authority that permanently empowers the administration to use the Alien Enemies Act for mass deportations; courts have alternately blocked and allowed enforcement at different stages, the Supreme Court’s intervention was temporary and procedural rather than a merits blessing, and at least one federal judge later concluded the administration’s invocation was unlawful — meaning the question of lawfulness remains contested in active litigation [1] [2] [3] [7].