A Venezuelan migrant is suing the U.S. government for the improper use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas-El Paso Division. This action aims to protect a group of Venezuelans detained in Texas who are facing imminent and potentially harmful removal under this law.
The lawsuit is accompanied by a habeas corpus petition against U.S. government officials, including President Donald Trump, as well as governmental agencies like the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The claim is lodged by M.A.P.S. (a common identification practice in legal proceedings when concerns about privacy or persecution arise), a detained Venezuelan citizen acting on her own behalf and for others in similar situations in Texas facing imminent removal.
The Lawsuit
The AEA is illegal because the Tren de Aragua is not a “nation or foreign government.”
On May 10, 2025, a class habeas corpus petition and a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed by M.A.P.S., a detained Venezuelan citizen, on her behalf and on behalf of others in similar situations.
Through this action, the plaintiffs challenge the legality of a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for the immediate removal of noncitizens, specifically Venezuelan citizens over the age of fourteen allegedly linked to the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua.
They argue that the invocation of the AEA is illegal because Tren de Aragua is not a “nation or foreign government” and is not involved in a military “invasion or predatory incursion.” They claim this government proclamation violates the AEA, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and due process by failing to provide asylum protections, withholding of removal, and non-refoulement, as well as adequate notice or opportunity to contest their designation as “foreign enemies.”
They assert that it undermines Congress’s procedural and substantive protections for noncitizens in immigration proceedings — including protection against torture — and does not provide notice or an opportunity for judicial review to challenge their classification as members of Tren de Aragua.
Previous court decisions have also been highlighted, which found the Proclamation to be likely illegal.
Misuse of the AEA
The lawsuit emphasizes that Donald Trump’s presidential proclamation invokes the AEA illegally and without precedent. They note that this law, a wartime authority from 1798, has only been used three times in U.S. history:
- During the War of 1812.
- In World War I.
- In World War II.
They further explain that the AEA is intended to be applied during a “declared war” against a “nation or foreign government” or against such a “nation or foreign government” that is conducting or threatening a “military invasion or predatory incursion.”
The lawsuit contends that the Tren de Aragua, as a criminal gang, does not qualify as a “nation or foreign government,” and that criminal activity and migration do not represent a “military invasion or predatory incursion,” according to the AEA’s definition. “It cannot be used against a criminal gang nor in peacetime.”
However, on March 15, the government transferred at least 137 Venezuelan nationals under the Proclamation to one of the world’s most infamous prisons in El Salvador, where they could remain isolated for life, according to the Salvadoran president.
Violation of Existing Immigration Laws (INA)
Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that Donald Trump’s proclamation nullifies the procedural and substantive protections established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 and its amendments.
The INA sets forth the “exclusive and unique” procedure for determining the removal of a noncitizen and enshrines important forms of humanitarian protection, including asylum, withholding of removal (based on a well-founded fear of persecution), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which prohibits removal to a country where it is more likely than not that the individual will face torture.
The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in the presidential proclamation circumvents these procedures and protections, the lawsuit asserts.
Lack of Due Process
Another central argument of the lawsuit is the lack of meaningful notice and opportunity for individuals to challenge their designation as members of Tren de Aragua and thus as “foreign enemies” under the proclamation.
It notes that individuals received only 12 hours of notice (often only in English) and merely 24 hours to file a habeas corpus petition if they indicated their intention to do so, which is considered “manifestly inadequate” by the plaintiff, contrasting with the Supreme Court’s ruling that notice must be “sufficient to allow them to actually seek judicial review.”
The lawsuit also points out that the Alien Enemies Act process denies the grace period required by Section 22 of the AEA for voluntary departure.
It stresses the imminent and severe risk for individuals subject to Trump’s proclamation, including removal to a “brutal prison in El Salvador, perhaps for the rest of their lives,” or to Venezuela or other locations where they face “indefinite detention, persecution, or other harms.”
Ongoing Litigation and Court Rulings
The lawsuit references numerous court rulings in other districts that have found the proclamation likely illegal, citing that the invocation of the AEA exceeds the scope of the statute and violates due process protections and the Constitution.
It also mentions a ruling in the same Texas district that holds that individuals designated as foreign enemies are entitled to a fact-finding hearing in a federal district court through a habeas corpus petition to contest their designation, where the government must prove the membership of Tren de Aragua with “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence.
In this context, it notes that the government employs a standardized checklist — “Foreign Enemy Validation Guide” — to determine Tren de Aragua membership, based on “questionable” criteria such as physical attributes (tattoos, gestures, etc.) that experts deemed unreliable.
The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of “All noncitizens in custody in the Western District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the Presidential Proclamation of March 2025 titled ‘Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua’ and/or its implementation.”
It claims this class meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and habeas corpus principles.
The Request
The lawsuit seeks relief in the form of a temporary restraining order, an order that prohibits removal under Donald Trump’s government proclamation, a habeas corpus remedy, a declaration of the Proclamation’s illegality, and an order requiring 30 days of notice and the opportunity to respond to any designation of foreign enemy.