The federal appeals court that had been holding back one of President Donald Trump’s most aggressive deportation tools just cleared the field — and the ruling that had been used to block him is officially gone.
On Wednesday, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — sitting en banc, all judges together — dismissed the ACLU’s high-profile challenge to Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The case, W.M.M. v. Trump, had been the vehicle for arguing that the president could not invoke a wartime deportation statute against alleged Venezuelan gang members during peacetime.
The court threw it out as moot. And in doing so, it wiped a prior anti-Trump ruling off the books.
What Actually Happened
The three plaintiffs at the heart of the case were alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. The Trump administration had moved to remove them under the Alien Enemies Act — the same 18th century statute previously used during the War of 1812, both World Wars, and other wartime removals.
The ACLU challenged the move, arguing that peacetime immigration enforcement doesn’t qualify as an “invasion” under the statute. A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel initially agreed with the ACLU on a 2-1 vote and slapped down a preliminary injunction against Trump’s use of the law.
The Trump administration then asked the full appeals court to rehear the case en banc — and that’s where the ACLU’s momentum came apart.
Case Closed. Ruling Erased.
Before the en banc court could resolve the merits, the government deported all three plaintiffs — under different immigration statutes, not the Alien Enemies Act. Once the three men were physically out of the country, the challenge had no live plaintiffs left to defend.
The full Fifth Circuit ruled the case moot. But that dismissal did something crucial: it vacated the earlier 2-1 panel ruling that had labeled Trump’s AEA use unlawful. That precedent — the one the ACLU had been waving as proof the president was overstepping — no longer exists.
From a courtroom scoreboard perspective, the anti-Trump ruling is gone. The Trump administration’s authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act stands untouched by any binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
The Two Trump-Appointed Judges Who Went Further
Two of the Fifth Circuit’s Trump appointees — Judge James Ho and Judge Andrew Oldham — went beyond the majority dismissal and filed concurring opinions arguing the court should have decided the merits outright.
Their position: when a president determines that an “invasion” has occurred at the border, the courts should give the executive branch near-total deference on that call. In other words — Ho and Oldham weren’t just willing to toss the ACLU case on procedural grounds. They were prepared to give Trump the full win on the substance.
That’s a signal worth reading carefully. If this fight ever reaches the Supreme Court, the framework Ho and Oldham laid out — full executive deference on “invasion” determinations — is exactly the kind of argument a conservative-majority high court has already accepted in other national security cases.
Why This Matters Beyond One Case
The bigger picture here isn’t about three deported gang suspects. It’s about whether the Trump administration retains the legal room to move fast on removals of alleged transnational gang members, cartel operatives, and other national security concerns without a court injunction slamming the brakes on every case.
After Wednesday’s ruling, the answer inside the Fifth Circuit is clear: the tool stays sharp. The prior ruling that would have blunted it is vacated. Any future challenge in the Fifth Circuit starts from a blank slate — no binding precedent stopping the administration.
Litigation is still active in other federal circuits, and the underlying question of whether the Alien Enemies Act permits peacetime use may eventually land at the Supreme Court. But for right now, the highest-profile lawsuit trying to strip Trump of this authority is dead — and the ruling that had been quoted against him for months no longer counts.
The Bottom Line
The ACLU wanted a Fifth Circuit ruling that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was illegal. They had one — briefly — on a 2-1 panel vote. Now they have nothing. The three plaintiffs are gone. The injunction is gone. The precedent is gone.
And two Trump-appointed judges just put every future challenger on notice that the president is going to get maximum deference on invasion determinations from at least part of that bench.
For an administration that has made border security and rapid removal of alleged gang members the cornerstone of its second-term agenda, this ruling isn’t just a win. It’s an unblocked runway.
Reporting compiled from confirmed coverage of the Fifth Circuit’s en banc dismissal in W.M.M. v. Trump, including analysis from Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy, RedState, and Cato Institute.
