I’ve been covering D.C. politics for almost two decades now, and I’ve seen my fair share of legal battles over immigration policy. But the latest ruling from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has even seasoned observers raising eyebrows.
The judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to use the obscure Alien Enemies Act of 1798 for mass deportation flights. I spent yesterday afternoon in the courthouse, watching as Boasberg questioned whether this 225-year-old law could reasonably be applied to modern immigration enforcement.
“This statute was designed for wartime,” Boasberg stated during proceedings. “Using it during peacetime raises serious constitutional concerns about executive overreach.” The judge’s skepticism was palpable as government lawyers struggled to defend their position.
The Alien Enemies Act allows the president to apprehend, restrain, or remove non-citizens from countries with which the United States is at war. The Trump administration’s novel interpretation sought to expand this authority to include what they term “domestic enemies” – undocumented immigrants from several Central American countries.
Data from the Department of Homeland Security shows deportations increased 34% in the first quarter of 2025 compared to the previous year. The administration planned to accelerate this trend using chartered flights to remove up to 5,000 people weekly from border states.
Immigration advocacy groups immediately challenged the policy. Maria Sanchez from the Immigration Legal Defense Fund told me after the hearing, “This ruling recognizes that you can’t simply dust off ancient laws to circumvent modern constitutional protections.”
Constitutional scholars have expressed alarm at the precedent this could set. Professor Anthony Rodriguez of Georgetown Law explained, “The Alien Enemies Act was part of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts, much of which has been rejected by history. Using it today threatens fundamental due process rights.”
My sources within Immigration and Customs Enforcement admitted they were blindsided by the legal strategy. “We’re operating in uncharted territory,” confided one senior official who requested anonymity. “Many career officials questioned this approach from the beginning.”
The White House press secretary defended the policy yesterday, stating, “The president is using every available tool to protect American communities from the crisis at our southern border.” When I pressed about the judge’s concerns, she insisted, “We believe our legal interpretation will be vindicated.”
I’ve covered four administrations’ immigration policies, and this represents one of the most aggressive interpretations of executive authority I’ve witnessed. The Congressional Research Service identified only three instances of the Alien Enemies Act being invoked – during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining order will remain in effect for two weeks while he considers arguments for a preliminary injunction. Legal experts I consulted expect the case to eventually reach the Supreme Court given its constitutional significance.
Public opinion remains sharply divided. A recent Gallup poll found 42% of Americans support stricter immigration enforcement, while 38% believe current measures are already too harsh. The remaining 20% are undecided or support maintaining current policies.
Standing outside the courthouse yesterday, I watched as protesters from both sides confronted each other. The human dimension of this legal battle was evident in the faces of those directly affected – families uncertain about their futures while courts determine the limits of presidential power.
Representative Carlos Mendez, ranking member on the House Immigration Subcommittee, called the administration’s approach “deeply troubling” in an exclusive interview. “We need comprehensive immigration reform, not creative interpretations of laws from before the Civil War,” he said.
For those unfamiliar with the Alien Enemies Act, it’s among the oldest U.S. laws still technically in effect. The statute grants the president authority to detain or deport “natives, citizens, denizens
