The Trump administration scored a significant legal victory on Tuesday as a federal judge ruled that President Trump has the authority to use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to remove illegal alien members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) from the United States. The decision came from U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines in the Western District of Pennsylvania, who concluded that Trump’s March 15 proclamation directing removals of TdA members is lawful — provided the administration gives proper notice and due process.

The case centers on the controversial use of the AEA, a wartime statute that grants the president power to deport nationals of hostile nations during declared conflicts. Trump invoked it by declaring that TdA, designated a foreign terrorist organization, posed an invasion threat and targeted U.S. territory.

While several other federal judges in states like Texas, New York, and Colorado previously ruled against Trump’s use of the AEA in similar cases, Haines broke with that trend. In her detailed opinion, she affirmed that Trump’s proclamation was within the scope of the statute, stating:

“[T]he question that this Court is answering… is this – so long as the Government provides sufficient notice and due process, may the President issue a Proclamation, pursuant to the AEA, directing the removal of… members of Tren de Aragua…? The Court answers that question in the affirmative.”

This decision provides much-needed legal backing for the administration after early setbacks, including a high-profile ruling by Judge James Boasberg in D.C. that temporarily blocked the deportation of suspected TdA members. That ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court, which concluded Boasberg lacked jurisdiction.

However, while Judge Haines upheld the legality of the removals, she also imposed new procedural requirements that could slow down enforcement. She ruled that the administration must provide:

1. A 21-day notice period and opportunity for individuals to be heard before removal.
2. Clear notice that the person is being deported under the AEA and Trump’s proclamation.
3. Notices in both English and Spanish, with interpreters if needed.

This aspect of the ruling may prompt further legal action from the administration, which could challenge the 21-day delay as a hindrance to national security priorities.

Haines also decertified a class action that she had previously approved, further undercutting plaintiffs’ ability to use sweeping injunctions to block future deportations. That alone makes this ruling a tactical win for Trump’s legal team.

The plaintiffs in the case were challenging Trump’s proclamation on constitutional grounds, arguing that the removals were arbitrary and deprived illegal aliens of due process. But Haines found that the government does have the right to target individuals fitting the criteria outlined in the proclamation — provided it does so transparently.

Importantly, the ruling emphasized judicial restraint. Haines made clear in her concluding remarks that she respects the role of the executive and legislative branches to shape immigration policy, writing:

“Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those officials, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will.”

While not a blanket endorsement of all Trump’s tactics, this ruling gives the administration the green light to continue pursuing deportations of TdA members — a major part of Trump’s promise to “clean out the gangs” and restore national security.

It also marks a rare moment of clarity amid a chaotic patchwork of lower court rulings on the use of the AEA, and it could serve as a roadmap for future cases. For now, the president’s authority to protect American communities from foreign criminal organizations remains intact — and the courts are finally starting to acknowledge it.