Prisoners look out of their cell as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem tours the Terrorist Confinement Center, or CECOT, on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. The Trump administration deported 238 alleged members of the Venezuelan criminal organizations 'Tren De Aragua' and Mara Salvatrucha.  (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court late Tuesday blocked the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, finding there is no “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign government and therefore President Donald Trump cannot invoke the wartime law to quickly expel Venezuelan nationals without due process. 

The 2-1 ruling rejected the administration’s argument that the Venezuelan migrants were part of an “invasion” to the United States and represents a setback for the president, who invoked the wartime law in March as a pillar of his mass deportation campaign to deport people without permanent legal status. 

The decision out of the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas is likely to head back to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Appeals Court Judges Leslie Harburd Southwick, nominated by former President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, nominated by former President Joe Biden, made up the majority in the case. Judge Andrew Oldham, nominated by Trump, dissented.

“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” according to the majority in the175-page opinion. “There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces.”

The lead attorney on the case, Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, praised the ruling. 

“This critical decision makes clear that the president cannot invoke whatever powers he wants,” Gelernt said in a statement. “This is a huge victory for the rule of law.”

Oldham dissented with the majority, arguing that a president’s authority to make the “declaration of an invasion, insurrection, or incursion is Conclusive. Final.” 

“And completely beyond the second-guessing powers of unelected federal judges,” Oldham wrote in his dissent.

A U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Tuesday’s decision is not final. 

“President Trump and Secretary (Kristi) Noem will not allow criminal gangs to terrorize American citizens,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American people. This ruling will not be the final say on this matter. We are confident in our position, and we have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side.”

Trump’s use of Alien Enemies Act

In March, President Donald Trump applied the Alien Enemies Act to Venezuelan nationals ages 14 and older who were accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang. 

He used the proclamation to send more than 200 Venezuelan men to a notorious prison in El Salvador, where they remained for months before being released to the Venezuelan government in a prison exchange this summer.

Trump also designated the Venezuelan gang as a foreign terrorist group earlier this year. 

Prior to March, the Alien Enemies Act had been invoked only three times – in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. The Trump administration applied the law to quickly expel Venezuelan nationals and argued the proclamation allowed for the skirting of due process rights, which judges have rejected. 

In April the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to use the wartime law but said those subject to the proclamation needed to have adequate notice to challenge their removal. 

In May, a separate Alien Enemies case was sent to the high court, which instructed the 5th Circuit to determine if the Trump administration’s declaration of the wartime law was legal. Tuesday’s decision stemmed from that case.

The decision only applies to the use of the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration can continue to remove people who are not U.S. citizens deemed as foreign threats. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, pictured July 31, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

The economy-wide tariffs President Donald Trump placed on nearly every U.S. trading partner are illegal, a federal appeals court said Friday.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act does not give the president the power to impose tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7-4 decision upholding a May decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade and dealing a blow to Trump’s signature trade policy.

The unsigned majority opinion said the tariffs “exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA’s text.”

However, the judges delayed their ruling from going into effect until October, providing the Trump administration an opportunity to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling also does not affect other tariffs Trump issued under different authorities, including industry- or material-specific tariffs on automobiles, steel and aluminum.

In a post to social media, Trump said he would appeal to the Supreme Court, where he predicted victory, and repeated his claim that tariffs were an essential economic tool.

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country,” he wrote shortly after the decision was published. “It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.… If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.”

Several Democratic states challenged the IEEPA tariffs. Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman argued on their behalf on July 31. The 11 judges on the appeals court expressed skepticism of both sides during those arguments.

In a statement Friday, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling “a huge win for Americans.”

“Every court that has reviewed these tariffs has agreed that they are unconstitutional,” he said. “This ruling couldn’t come at a better time as people are walking into their local stores and seeing price increases for school supplies, clothes, and groceries.”

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivers remarks to staff at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 28, 2025.  (Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court unanimously ruled Friday the Trump administration likely acted unlawfully when it revoked extensions for temporary protections for more than 600,000 Venezuelans. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit panel agreed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s March decision to block Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to vacate two extensions of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, to the group until October 2026 that the Biden administration put in place early this year.

One of the groups of Venezuelans had their TPS expire in April and the second is set to expire in September. The three-judge panel found that the Trump administration’s decision to end TPS in April is also likely unlawful.

The panel said Noem did not have the authority to revoke the TPS extensions granted by then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. 

Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, Salvador Mendoza Jr. and Anthony Johnstone, who were both appointed by former President Joe Biden, reached the decision.

The judges ruled that the law creating TPS, which grants work visas and deportation protections to nationals from a country deemed too dangerous to return to, was designed to create “predictable periods of safety and legal status for TPS beneficiaries” and the administration’s cancellation of the extension contradicted that goal.

“Sudden reversals of prior decisions contravene the statute’s plain language and purpose,” they wrote. “Here, hundreds of thousands of people have been stripped of status and plunged into uncertainty. The stability of TPS has been replaced by fears of family separation, detention, and deportation.”

“Congress did not contemplate this, and the ongoing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs warrants a remedy pending a final adjudication on the merits,” they continued.

A spokesperson for DHS did not return a message seeking comment Friday.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration in May to end TPS for the group of 350,000 Venezuelans that expired in April. It is unclear how Friday’s order will affect that group.

The roughly 250,000 Venezuelans in another group are set to have their TPS expire Sept. 10 after the DHS revoked the extension.

White House budget director Russ Vought speaks with reporters inside the U.S. Capitol building on Tuesday, July 15, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The White House budget office has until Friday to republish a website detailing the pace at which it plans to spend money approved by Congress, following a federal court ruling. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in an opinion filed Saturday denied the Trump administration’s request to halt a lower court’s ruling that required it to once again post information about spending decisions called apportionments.

The 27-page opinion, written by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, said that to “grant the Executive a stay pending appeal in this separation-of-powers standoff would effectively cut the Congress’s purse strings.”

“No President would allow a usurper to command our armed forces. And no Congress should be made to wait while the Executive intrudes on its plenary power over appropriations and disclosure thereof,” Henderson wrote. “The public interest is best served by maintaining the separation-of-powers balance struck by the Constitution and especially so if the challenged statutes keep the citizenry abreast regarding duly appropriated expenditures.”

Henderson was nominated to the Circuit Court in 1990 by then-President George H.W. Bush, a few years after then-President Ronald Reagan nominated her as a federal district judge in 1986.

Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel for Protect Democracy Project, one of the organizations that filed the lawsuit, released a statement cheering the Circuit Court’s decision.

“Restoration of this website could not have come at a more important time — over the last two weeks journalists have broken story after story of OMB holding back funds using apportionment footnotes — and once this website goes back online we should all have a chance to learn where else OMB has been holding up money that — under law — should be spent,” Lindgrensavage wrote.

The Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to a request for comment from States Newsroom on Monday. The Department of Justice replied “no comment” when asked if they planned to appeal the Circuit Court’s decision.

OMB pulled down website

Congress began requiring OMB to publicly post information about how quickly, or how slowly, the executive branch was spending taxpayer dollars during the Biden administration.

White House budget director Russell Vought opted to pull down that website in March, leading to two separate lawsuits — one from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, and one from Protect Democracy Project.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled in late July that OMB must republish the website, writing that Congress “has sweeping authority” to require the president to detail how his administration doles out taxpayer dollars throughout the year.

“As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money,” he wrote. “Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!”

The Trump administration appealed that ruling and asked for the district court’s decision to be put on hold while the case played out in the circuit court.

The weekend ruling from Henderson denied that request. 

Left to right, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs can go forward while the administration fights to overturn a lower court’s trade decision that ruled the global import taxes unlawful, according to a U.S. appeals court order late Tuesday.

The two cases filed by a handful of private businesses and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general will be consolidated and heard by a full panel of active circuit court judges in July, according to the four-page order from the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit.

Democratic state attorneys general who brought the suit represent Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

The court “concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,” according to the order.

A hearing is scheduled for July 31 in Washington, D.C.

Trump rocked global markets when he imposed the wide-reaching levies on nearly every country on April 2 under an unprecedented use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The president walked them back just seven days later, announcing a 90-day pause on staggering tariffs that reached nearly 50% on some major U.S. trading partners.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs May 28. The following day, the appeals court temporarily restored the tariffs.