New: Trump Administration Scores a Big Court Win As Judge Weighs in on AEA Removals

The Trump administration scored another court win on Tuesday, as a Pennsylvania District Court Judge found in favor of the administration (mostly — we'll get to that) on a case involving the removal of illegal alien Venezuelan gang members pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).

President Donald Trump issued a proclamation in mid-March declaring that Tren de Aragua (TdA), which has been designated a foreign terrorist organization, "is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." As such, he ordered the apprehension and removal of "all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States."

And then came the lawsuits. Many of them. The J.G.G. v. Trump case in front of Judge James Boasberg in the D.C. District Court grabbed a lot of early attention following Boasberg's rather stunning temporary restraining orders (TROs) effectively ordering planes transporting TdA members to El Salvador to be turned around, and an ensuing battle of wills between the administration and Boasberg. That largely was mooted after the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that Boasberg did not have jurisdiction to enter the TROs certifying a class and restraining the government from removing alleged TdA members from the country.

Since then, we've been waiting to see what the courts that do have jurisdiction (at least arguably) might do in the offshoot cases. We got one answer out of Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. in the Southern District of Texas in early May, in the case styled J.A.V. v. Trump. Rodriguez (a Trump appointee) determined that Trump's invocation of the AEA through the March 15 proclamation exceeded the scope of the statute and the government does not "possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country."

Several other district court judges (in New York and Colorado) have ruled in similar fashion. But on Tuesday, Judge Stephanie Haines of the Western District of Pennsylvania (also a Trump appointee) found that Trump does have authority under AEA to issue the proclamation directing the removal of those who meet the criteria.

🚨 BREAKING - VICTORY: FIRST federal judge rules that Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan criminal Tren de Aragua members is LEGAL.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines made this decision. She is a TRUMP-appointed judge. pic.twitter.com/5sBMuRzM8W
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 13, 2025

From the opinion:

[T]he question that this Court is answering, is this – so long as the Government provides sufficient notice and due process, may the President issue a Proclamation, pursuant to the AEA directing the removal of: (1) Venezuelan citizens, (2) who are fourteen (14) years of age or older, (3) who are within the United States, (4) who are neither actually naturalized nor lawful permanent residents, and (5) who are members of Tren de Aragua ("TdA"), which is a Foreign Terrorist Organization ("FTO")? After extensive consideration, and for the following reasons, the Court answers that question in the affirmative.

The catch there is that Haines also found that the administration hasn't been giving adequate notice to those subject to removal, and thus ordered them to provide the following:

In sum, the Court finds that Respondents must provide to individual detainees who are subject to the AEA and the Proclamation the following notice before removing them pursuant to those provisions of law: (1) twenty-one (21) days’ notice and an “opportunity to be heard," (2) notice that clearly articulates the fact that the individual detainee is subject to removal under the Proclamation and the AEA, and (3) notice in English and Spanish, the language of those sought to be expelled, and if needed, Spanish-to-English interpreters shall be provided for any necessary hearings.

Haines also decertified the class she had previously certified in late April. So, overall, this is a win for the administration, though they may object to (and even challenge) the 21-day notice requirement Haines' order imposes on them.

Folks may understandably take issue with that, but I'll add that I appreciate the way Haines closed out her opinion, even while I don't necessarily agree with all of her reasoning or conclusions:

Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those officials, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will.

Judge Haines, at least, appears to appreciate that there are limits to Article III's role.

Editor's Note: Partisan federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people

Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.