• A federal judge in Texas ruled against the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants, stating it was improperly applied in peacetime.
• The case involved a Venezuelan couple accused of gang ties, but the judge criticized the lack of credible evidence and ordered their immediate release.
• This ruling challenges the broader use of wartime laws for immigration enforcement, raising questions about due process and federal agency accountability.

A federal judge in Texas has blocked efforts by the Trump administration to deport Venezuelan immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), ruling that the law was improperly applied in peacetime. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge David Briones, ordered the release of two Venezuelan nationals accused of gang affiliation, signaling a major legal challenge to the administration’s controversial use of wartime powers for immigration enforcement.

Ruling Challenges Trump’s Use of Wartime Authority

Judge Briones ruled on April 25 that invoking the Alien Enemies Act—an 18th-century wartime law—was inappropriate in this context, emphasizing that the Executive Branch’s actions created legal and procedural chaos. He described the evidence used to justify the detentions as “multiple levels of hearsay” with no direct factual basis.

The case involved Julio Cesar Sanchez Puentes and Luddis Norelia Sanchez Garcia, a Venezuelan couple detained in El Paso and accused of ties to the Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization. Briones directed their immediate release, stating that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) failed to provide any lawful grounds for their ongoing detention.

A Closer Look at the Case

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The couple entered the United States on October 13, 2022, and was initially detained. They were later paroled and granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) while living with their three children in Washington, D.C. However, on April 1, 2025, their TPS was terminated due to alleged links to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). They were re-detained by ICE at El Paso International Airport shortly after.

Judge Briones criticized the lack of credible evidence in the government’s claims, stating that the accusations were based on unreliable testimony and declarations without personal knowledge of the facts. The judge’s decision came after multiple legal petitions challenging the legality of the detentions.

Broader Implications for Immigration Policy

The ruling presents a setback for the Trump administration’s immigration strategy, which sought to use the Alien Enemies Act—a rarely invoked law passed in 1798—to deport individuals suspected of terrorist or criminal ties. President Trump had defended the measure as a necessary tool to address threats posed by criminal organizations like Tren de Aragua.

However, critics argue that the administration’s actions circumvent due process and disproportionately target vulnerable populations. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted deportations of other Venezuelan immigrants under the same law, further complicating the administration’s efforts.

Government Response and Next Steps

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

In an April 19 filing, Solicitor General John Sauer defended the administration’s position, claiming the deportations were lawful and essential for national security. The Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to uphold its use of the AEA, asserting that the immigrants in question are unlawfully present and pose a threat.

Meanwhile, the couple’s attorney, Chris Benoit, welcomed the ruling, calling it a “thoughtful, well-reasoned decision.” He noted that the couple had appeared before four different judges, none of whom found sufficient grounds for their detention. “They have lived peacefully in the U.S. since 2022 and have deep ties to their community,” Benoit said in a statement.

What’s Next?

As legal battles continue, the implications of this case could ripple through U.S. immigration policy. The ruling raises questions about the accountability of federal agencies like ICE and the broader use of wartime laws in peacetime settings. Legal experts predict that this case—and others like it—will set important precedents for future immigration enforcement.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision, potentially escalating the matter back to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, immigrant advocacy groups are calling for greater oversight into how federal powers are applied, emphasizing the need for fairness and due process.

Share Your Thoughts

What do you think about the use of wartime powers for immigration enforcement? Let us know in the comments below, and don’t forget to share this article with others interested in immigration policy and current events.

Follow The Dupree Report on WhatsApp to stay updated on breaking news and analysis: Follow The Dupree Report on WhatsApp.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10