Judge Maintains Blocks on Trump Admin’s Use of Alien Enemies Act for Deportations

The administration had moved to vacate the temporary restraining orders.

Salvadoran police officers escort alleged members of the Tren de Aragua terrorist group recently deported by the U.S. government to be imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center prison, as part of an agreement with the Salvadoran government, in Tecoluca, El Salvador, in this handout image obtained on March 16, 2025. Secretaria de Prensa de la Presidencia/Handout via Reuters

A federal judge in Washington has denied the Trump administration’s request to remove two orders blocking the administration’s ability to deport members of a Venezuelan gang under the Alien Enemies Act.

In an opinion on March 24, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said he has jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue and that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that they are entitled to an individualized hearing to determine whether the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 applies to them.

Boasberg also said the plaintiffs who challenged the Trump administration’s action could not be deported until a court had ruled on the merits of their challenge. He noted that they disputed that they were, in fact, members of the Tren de Aragua terrorist group.

Boasberg’s decision follows a contentious hearing on March 21, when he said the administration had used “intemperate” and “disrespectful” language.

At one point, he advised Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Drew Ensign to ensure that his team at the DOJ retained a lesson about its reputation and credibility being the most valuable treasure that it possesses. Boasberg and the DOJ have clashed in recent days over the nature of his authority and, in particular, whether an oral order that he issued on March 15 was binding.

In court filings last week, the DOJ described Boasberg’s orders as “an affront to the President’s broad constitutional and statutory authority to protect the United States from dangerous aliens who pose grave threats to the American people.”

In another filing on March 19, the Trump administration suggested that the case had “devolved into a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding.”

“In a series of orders this Court has requested the Government to provide it details about the movements of aircraft outside of the United States and interactions with foreign nations which have no bearing on any legal issue at stake in the case,” the administration stated.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has called for Boasberg’s impeachment. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to respond just hours later in a statement last week.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times.

On March 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is expected to hear oral arguments in the case. It is just one of many cases testing presidential authority and making its way through the courts under the Trump administration.