The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled against the Trump administration in a case involving the invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan migrants. In a 2-1 decision in J.O.P. v. Department of Homeland Security, the court found that President Trump's invocation of the AEA could not override a legal settlement barring deportation, and a concurring opinion by Judge Roger Gregory held that the invocation was illegal. Judge Gregory's opinion joins a growing list of federal judges who have determined that the activities of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, cited by Trump as justification for the AEA, do not constitute an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion' as required by the statute. The court emphasized that the AEA has historically been invoked only during wartime or clear military attacks, which is not the case here. Separately, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals expedited a related case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, involving Venezuelan migrants challenging their removal under the AEA. Judge James Ho, in a concurring opinion, criticized the Supreme Court for reversing the Fifth Circuit's earlier decision, referencing the 42 minutes the district court had to rule, and for its handling of emergency filings. Ho argued that district courts and the president deserve the same respect as other litigants, and referenced Judge Wes Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, blocked the Trump administration from carrying out removals under the AEA, citing concerns over due process and the administration's failure to provide adequate notice to detainees at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility. The Court's decision prevents further removals under the AEA until the lower courts clarify the required notice period. The court also referenced the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a detainee previously deported to CECOT prison in El Salvador. The administration's March 14 proclamation invoked the AEA to target alleged members of Tren de Aragua for removal. The courts have also addressed the administration's attempts to avoid class-action status by promising not to remove named plaintiffs while cases proceed. Most federal court rulings to date have found the use of the AEA in this context to be unlawful.