5th Circuit Rules Against Trump Admin on Its Use of AEA to Remove TdA Members – RedState

Late Tuesday evening, the 5th circuit made its decision in the now stylish case WMM c. Trump (Previously stylized as AARP c. Trump) With regard to the use by the Trump Administration of the Act on Extraterrestrial Enemies (AEA) to withdraw the so-called members of Tren of Aragua (ADD) of the United States to pursue, the court judged that the administration invoked the AEA in incorrection to justify the abolition of the alleged TDA members because “we find no invasion or predatory incursion”.

This case experienced a complicated story of procedure which involved several notable decisions and a foray into the Supreme Court, which led to a surprising decision of the Easter weekend which returned the case to the 5th circuit to determine two things:

(1) All normal preliminary injunction factors, including the probability of success in substance, as for the name of the name [Petitioners’] Underlying the Habeas claims that the AEA does not allow their dismissal in accordance with the proclamation of the president of the president on March 14, 2025, and (2) the question of which opinion is due, with regard to complaints of regular procedure of the putative class against the summary referral.

Related: “This is a district court – not a Denny’s”: the 5th circuit responds to Scotus in the TDA and Hoo Boy case

Breaking: the Supreme Court again prevents Trump’s administrator from deporting TDA members without “appropriate” notice

To invoke a cliché, the court has divided the baby well enough into its decision, although one can reasonably discuss not to be equal.

This is a 185 -page opinion, written by judge Leslie Southwick (named Bush 43), with judge Irma Ramirez (a named Biden) corresponding to the AEA question and dissident on the question of the opinion. (Although it agrees that the government’s revised opinion provides adequate information, it does not agree that the seven -day notice is sufficient and affirms that the notice period should be 21 days.) And then judge Andrew Oldham (one appointed by Trump) dissipates (categorically) the question of the AEA, but that it apparently accepts that the opinion provided by the government provides for the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority for the rationalization of the rational.

The heart of the decision – and why it is considered a loss for the Trump administration – is the determination of the AEA. Margot Cleveland usefully presented some of the key parts of opinion in this thread:

2 / The following are relevant passages explaining the opinion of the court. pic.twitter.com/jlvcju47wn

– Margot Cleveland (@ProfmjCleveland) September 3, 2025

However, to summarize, as indicated above, the court is essentially of the proclamation / determination of President Trump that the ADD “perpetuates, tries and threatens an invasion or a predatory foray against the territory of the United States”. The court grants a preliminary injunction to prevent the withdrawal of the AEA and refers the case to the district court for new procedures, although it points out that this decision only concerns the invocation of the AEA:

We declare, like the Supreme Court, that our injunction applies only to the use of the federal law linked to war and does not lead to the use of another statutory authority to eliminate foreign terrorists.

Oldham’s dissent does in -depth work to underline the fact that the determination of the AEA is rightly reserved for the executive, and not for judicial power, and that the rules (and the law) seem to apply differently for this president:

For 227 years, each president of each political party has played the same general powers to repel threats to our nation under the law on extraterrestrial enemies (“AEA”). And from the dawn of our nation until President Trump takes office a second time, the courts were never to divide the invocation by the president of this act. Not once. The reason is simple: to determine whether the prerequisites of the AEA are satisfied – whether there is a declared war, or “any incursion of invasion or predator” “perpetrated, attempted or threatened”, 50 USC § 21 – depends on “questions of political judgment for which the judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility”. LUDECK C. Watkins335 US 160, 170 (1948).

…

For President Trump, however, the rules are different. Today, the majority maintains that President Trump is only an ordinary civilian litigant. His declaration of predatory incursion is not conclusive. Far from it. On the contrary, President Trump must argue enough facts – as if he were an ordinary plaintiff in a contract violation case – to convince a federal judge whom he is entitled to a reparation.

Which contravenes more than 200 years of legal preceding. And it transmrifies the least dangerous branch in vomit crossings which can play as a multituine in chief commanders.

This will probably be greeted by a request for rehearsal in bench (by the administration) and, without a doubt, to find its way to the Supreme Court (whatever the way it shakes) before everything is said and done, but for the moment, it is a blow to the use by the administration of the AEA for purposes.

Publisher’s note: Left radical judges do everything they can on the agenda of President Trump to make America again large.

Help us hold these corrupt judges responsible for their unconstitutional decisions. Join Redstate VIP and use the promotional code STRUGGLE To obtain 60% reduction on your subscription.