Appeals court dismisses challenge to Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act as moot after plaintiffs deported
The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dismissed a major challenge to President Donald Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod ruled the case moot because the three Venezuelan plaintiffs, alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, were deported under alternative immigration laws. While the dismissal leaves the legality of using wartime authority during peacetime unresolved, the ACLU notes that a Supreme Court injunction blocking such removals remains in place.
Fifth Circuit mootness dismissal
▪The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit W.M.M. v. Trump as moot on August 13, 2026, without resolving the legality of the Alien Enemies Act's invocation.
▪The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge because the Trump administration deported all three named plaintiffs using alternative legal authorities under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
▪The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused a request by the plaintiffs' attorneys to substitute new plaintiffs for the three deported Venezuelan men.
Alien Enemies Act invocation
▪The Trump administration sought to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan members of the Tren de Aragua drug gang without due process.
▪The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the detention and deportation of foreign citizens during a declared war, invasion, or predatory incursion perpetrated or threatened by a foreign nation.
Tren de Aragua deportations
▪The dispute originated from a March 2025 effort by the Trump administration to deport more than 100 Venezuelans without due process.
▪In September 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled against Donald Trump, holding that illegal migration and drug smuggling do not qualify as an invasion under the Alien Enemies Act.
Presidential invasion determination
▪Judge James Ho argued in a concurring opinion that the court should have ruled on the merits, asserting the president is entitled to absolute deference in determining whether an invasion has occurred.
▪Judge Andrew Oldham indicated he would have preferred a ruling on the merits that grants the president virtually total deference regarding invasion determinations.
Supreme Court injunction remains
▪In May 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration failed to provide targeted Venezuelan migrants with sufficient time or information to contest their removals under the Alien Enemies Act.
▪The Supreme Court's injunction temporarily barring the Trump administration from removing individuals under the Alien Enemies Act remains in place, according to ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt.
Story comments
Loading comments…