Trump Deportations Largely OK Under 1798 Law, Judge Rules (1)

President Donald Trump’s deportations under Alien Enemies Act of 1798 are mostly “in step” with the law’s statutory framework, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Tuesday.

The ruling comes as a rare victory for Trump on the issue after multiple other district courts have found his invocation of the law unlawful since the US isn’t being invaded by a foreign force or experiencing a “predatory incursion” as required by the law.

But Judge Stephanie L. Haines, of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, ruled that Trump’s March proclamation invoking the AEA meets various definitions outlined in the statute’s language.

Haines denied in part the preliminary injunction sought by a Venezuelan man, identified as A.S.R., halting his removal. The court “finds that the proclamation now at issue complies with the AEA,” Haines said.

However, she granted that relief regarding the Trump administration’s need to give greater notice to those subject to removal than its currently giving. Haines ruled the notice the executive branch is extending detainees is constitutionally deficient. She ordered the administration to give people subject to removal under the AEA a 21-day window to seek habeas relief after they receive notice.

A temporary restraining order blocking A.S.R. from being removed from the US expired on Tuesday as well, the order said. Haines, a Trump appointee from his first term, noted that the US could, and may, again designate A.S.R. as removable under the AEA and the proclamation after her ruling.

The US alleges that A.S.R. is a member of Tren de Aragua, which was designated as a foreign terror organization. This coupled with A.S.R. being a Venezuelan citizen illegally in the US over the age of 14 satisfies the requirements for removal under the AEA, Haines wrote.

Haines ruled Trump’s proclamation meets the definition of “predatory incursion” under the AEA since the president describes one being committed by Tren de Aragua, the opinion said. The proclamation further meets the definitions of “against the territory of the United States” and “by any foreign nation or government,” she wrote.

Haines also de-certified a class of detainees that A.S.R. represented, ruling in a separate opinion that he failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23’s numerosity requirement since there wasn’t a class to represent in the Western District.

The American Civil Liberties Union represents A.S.R.

The case is A.S.R. v. Trump, W.D. Pa., No. 3:25-cv-00113, 5/13/25.