Twenty-Four States Rally Behind Trump's Immigration Enforcement Powers

In a significant development that underscores the ongoing struggle between federal authority and judicial oversight, attorneys general from 24 Republican-led states have filed legal briefs supporting President Donald Trump's administration in its use of the historic Alien Enemies Act for migrant detention and removal operations.

This coalition represents more than a legal maneuver; it reflects a broader philosophical divide about the nature of sovereignty and the executive's constitutional prerogatives in matters of national security. The states argue that federal courts lack the authority to challenge presidential determinations regarding what constitutes an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" under this centuries-old statute.

Historical Precedent and Modern Application

The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798 during America's formative years, has historically been invoked only during declared wars, including both World Wars. Trump's recent proclamation marked one of the rare modern applications of this statute, specifically targeting the transnational criminal organization Tren de Aragua and its alleged Venezuelan operatives.

Under this legal framework, Venezuelan nationals suspected of gang membership were designated "alien enemies," subjecting them to detention and removal without the conventional immigration court processes. This approach represents a decisive shift from traditional immigration enforcement mechanisms.

Constitutional Questions and Executive Authority

The coalition of states, led by South Carolina and including Texas and Florida among others, maintains that judicial review of presidential national security determinations would constitute an unconstitutional intrusion into powers explicitly reserved for the executive branch. Their legal brief argues that courts lack clear standards to evaluate whether an invasion exists, rendering the matter a political question beyond judicial purview.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt articulated the administration's position, stating: "We are confident in the lawfulness of the Administration's actions and in ultimately prevailing against an onslaught of meritless litigation brought by radical activists who care more about the rights of terrorist aliens than those of the American people."

Judicial Scrutiny and Legal Challenges

The legal battle has produced notable judicial commentary, with U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett observing that "Nazis were treated better than Venezuelans deported by Trump," while questioning whether targeted individuals had adequate opportunity to contest gang membership allegations before deportation.

Several detainees have filed habeas corpus petitions in federal court, resulting in temporary restraining orders and a series of rapidly evolving judicial disputes over removal procedures. The administration's actions, including flights that transported detainees to El Salvador in March 2025, have prompted separate contempt proceedings in Washington, D.C.

Implications for Sovereignty and Security

From a geopolitical perspective, this case illuminates fundamental questions about national sovereignty in an era of transnational threats. The supporting states argue they face direct public safety and financial consequences from organized criminal activity, justifying decisive federal action without prolonged judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court's eventual involvement appears likely, particularly given potential circuit splits and the case's broader implications for executive power. The outcome will establish precedent for how future administrations address migration pressures and transnational crime, regardless of political affiliation.

A Test of Constitutional Boundaries

This legal confrontation transcends partisan immigration debates, representing a fundamental test of constitutional boundaries between executive authority, judicial oversight, and national security imperatives. The resolution will determine whether a law crafted in America's early republic can be adapted to address contemporary security challenges posed by non-state actors and transnational criminal organizations.

As the case progresses through the federal appellate system, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals positioned to make crucial determinations, the broader implications for American governance and the balance of constitutional powers remain at stake. The outcome will inevitably shape the relationship between executive authority and judicial review in matters of national security for generations to come.