Could a president deploy wartime law against the Beatles? Trump administration says “Yes”

Federal judges on Thursday scrutinized the Trump administration’s unprecedented use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan gang members, raising pointed questions about the scope of presidential power over immigration enforcement.

During oral arguments before all 17 judges of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod posed a provocative hypothetical: Could a president use this same wartime law against a “British invasion” corrupting young minds—a reference to the cultural panic surrounding the Beatles and British rock bands in the 1960s?

Drew Ensign, the assistant attorney general defending the administration’s position, answered affirmatively that a president would indeed possess such authority, with courts having no power to intervene. “These sort of questions of foreign affairs and the security of the nation are specifically political issues,” Ensign argued, suggesting only Congress could check presidential overreach in such scenarios.

The exchange highlighted the extraordinary breadth of power the administration claims under the 18th-century law, which has only been invoked three times previously in American history—during the War of 1812 and both World Wars.

The case centers on President Trump’s controversial targeting of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang members for deportation. A three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit—one of the nation’s most conservative appellate courts—previously ruled that Trump had improperly applied the wartime law against a criminal organization rather than a hostile foreign government.

Lee Gelernt, representing the ACLU in the case, emphasized this distinction during arguments. “Tren de Aragua is committing ordinary crimes that are being dealt with by law enforcement,” he told the court. “The Alien Enemies Act is about wartime and it’s about the military.”

The administration’s defense rests on broad interpretations of the law’s language. Ensign noted that the statute allows presidential action during “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” arguing that courts should defer to presidential determinations of such threats. “A predatory incursion is less than an invasion,” Ensign claimed, citing precedent that even foreign fishing boats entering U.S. waters could qualify.

Ensign further justified the administration’s actions by alleging the gang operated at the direction of recently ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s government—an assertion that some law enforcement experts have questioned.

Several judges expressed concern about second-guessing presidential determinations regarding national security threats, suggesting potential sympathy for the administration’s expansive view of executive authority in immigration matters.

The legal saga surrounding Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has already required Supreme Court intervention twice. The administration previously used the act to deport 252 Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador, claiming U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that individuals facing deportation under the act must receive “reasonable” opportunities to challenge their designation as gang members.

Later, as the administration prepared additional deportation flights from Texas, the high court issued an unusual midnight ruling halting further removals under the act until the 5th Circuit could establish proper procedural safeguards.

The Supreme Court has not yet addressed the fundamental constitutional question of whether Trump’s application of the 1798 law is legitimate. That issue now lies with the full 5th Circuit, though many legal experts anticipate the case will ultimately return to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

No timeline was provided for when the 5th Circuit might issue its ruling in this closely watched case that tests the boundaries of presidential power, immigration enforcement, and the contemporary application of centuries-old legislation designed for wartime emergencies.