Judges Push Back on Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act
There’s been a big development in the courts that says a lot about how judges view the Trump Justice Department these days. Normally, the government enjoys something in the legal world known as the “presumption of regularity.” That’s a fancy way of saying that judges usually assume government officials are acting in good faith, unless there’s clear evidence to suggest otherwise. It’s a level of trust that administrations in the past, Republican or Democrat, have counted on when arguing in court. But under Donald Trump’s Justice Department, that trust seems to be slipping away.
The latest example came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, where a divided panel of judges blocked the administration’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members in Northern Texas. Now, this law dates back to the 18th century and was never intended to be used in this way, at least not according to the majority of the panel. The judges granted a preliminary injunction, which means deportations under that statute in this case are paused while the litigation plays out.
Also Read:What makes this ruling especially important is not just the immediate halt to deportations. It’s the fact that the judges openly questioned whether they could rely on the Justice Department’s word. In the past, courts often took government lawyers at face value when they made legal or factual claims. But in this case, the majority cited previous situations where the Supreme Court had sided with plaintiffs despite assurances from the government. That shows a real hesitation to give Trump’s DOJ the usual benefit of the doubt.
Interestingly, the two judges who made up the majority were not cut from the same political cloth. One was appointed by President George W. Bush, and the other by President Joe Biden. On the other side, a dissenting judge, appointed by Trump, argued strongly that the government should still be given that presumption of good faith. He went so far as to say that accusing Justice Department lawyers of lying was “astounding” and that it undermined long-standing legal tradition. He warned that the majority’s skepticism seemed to flip the rulebook, treating Trump’s administration with a presumption of “irregularity” instead.
This whole debate ties into a larger conversation happening across the judiciary. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently expressed frustration that the high court often bends over backward to side with administrations, suggesting a game where the government always wins. Now, at the appellate level, we’re seeing the opposite—judges who are not so quick to trust what Trump’s DOJ says.
If this case eventually makes it up to the Supreme Court, it could provide a very clear test of which perspective will prevail. Will the courts return to giving the government wide deference, or will the skepticism toward Trump’s Justice Department set a new standard? Either way, this ruling marks a turning point. It shows that at least some judges are no longer willing to hand over blind trust, and that shift could have major consequences for how far this administration can push its legal agenda.
Read More:
0 Comments