On Friday, May 16, 2025, American law professor John Yoo published an opinion piece on Fox News addressing escalating tensions between President Donald Trump’s administration and federal district courts over immigration policy.
The article highlights recent judicial challenges to Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations of Venezuelan migrants, particularly members of the Tren de Aragua gang, and raises concerns about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.
According to the piece, two federal district judges issued rulings in early May 2025 that blocked aspects of Trump’s immigration agenda. On May 1, Judge Fernando Rodriguez in Texas ruled that Trump could not invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador. Five days later, on May 6, Judge Charlotte Sweeney in Colorado issued a similar ruling, temporarily prohibiting the deportation of Venezuelan migrants without judicial hearings. These decisions mark a rare instance of federal courts overriding executive or congressional determinations of an attack or invasion, the article notes.
The opinion piece explains that the Alien Enemies Act allows the president to detain and expel citizens of a hostile nation during a declared war or in response to an invasion or predatory incursion. Historically, the act was used during the War of 1812 and both World Wars.
On March 15, 2025, Trump invoked the act to deport Tren de Aragua members, claiming the gang was conducting “irregular warfare” through activities like drug trafficking and mass illegal migration. The administration argued that the gang’s alleged ties to the Venezuelan government justified its classification as a hostile foreign entity, meeting the act’s criteria for an invasion.
Yoo’s piece contends that these judicial interventions raise significant constitutional questions. It argues that federal judges blocking deportations may encroach on the executive branch’s authority over foreign relations and national security. The article references Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which established that certain political decisions, particularly those involving national security, are reserved for the president and are not subject to judicial review. The piece suggests that the judiciary’s role is limited when it comes to “political questions” like war or invasion, which are entrusted to the elected branches.
The article cites historical precedent, noting that federal courts have traditionally avoided challenging executive decisions on military matters. For example, during the Civil War, the Supreme Court in the Prize Cases upheld President Abraham Lincoln’s authority to wage war against the Confederacy without judicial interference. Similarly, courts declined to intervene in lawsuits challenging U.S. involvement in conflicts like the Korean War, Vietnam War, and wars in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Yoo argues that the recent rulings in Texas and Colorado deviate from this tradition of judicial deference. The piece asserts that district judges lack the expertise to evaluate the complex and sensitive information involved in national security decisions. It calls for swift review by federal appeals courts and, if necessary, the Supreme Court to clarify the judiciary’s role in such matters. The article emphasizes that courts are designed to handle legal disputes through formal procedures, not to assess the risks and probabilities central to national security policy.
Source: Fox News
