Violent gang members deported from the United States arrive in El Salvador on Saturday, March 15, 2025

President Donald Trump has been given a victory in a fight over his use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people with a decision from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that one case is over because the plaintiffs already have been deported.

The panel concluded, “The Supreme Court remanded this case to us when the three named petitioners were still in the country. But we have since learned that the government has removed them. Given this change, we conclude that the appeal is moot. … Given the lack of any named petitioners to whom we could grant relief in this appeal, and given that this case has never and does not now feature any class, we conclude that the appeal is moot. We therefore DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

A report from legacy media NBC described the decision as the appeals court having “dodged” a decision.

The fight was over the administration’s use of the federal law to remove “alleged Tren de Aragua” gang members without providing procedures for them to challenge their removal.

A panel earlier ruled against Trump, but the case went up the Supreme Court, and then back to the lower panel.

The court declined to allow the lawyers working on the case to bring in “new plaintiffs.”

The Gateway Pundit noted, “Although several district court judges have ruled against President Trump’s decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan aliens, a federal judge in Pennsylvania became the first to say Trump can invoke the AEA to deport Tren de Aragua gang members.”

But it was Judge James Ho who wrote a concurring opinion that said the opinion should have addressed directly the merits of the case.

His opinion would have ended this legal fight, and prevented future such cases, pointing out that it is within the president’s authority to declare when the nation is being invaded – just has Trump did in 2025.

“Determining the existence of a state of invasion is a quintessentially executive prerogative—not a judicial one,” he confirmed.

He explained federal law “authorizes the president to detain and remove enemy aliens when there is either ‘a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government,’ or ‘any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,’ and ‘the President makes public proclamation of the event.'”

The plaintiffs lawyers had claimed while courts must defer to congressional declarations of war, they could ignore a president’s proclamation of an invasion.

“That curious (if not counterintuitive) hierarchy conflicts with the text of the Alien Enemies Act. It also turns the war powers of the United States on its head. As a matter of statutory interpretation as well as separation of powers, there’s no basis for requiring courts to defer to a congressional declaration of war, but not a presidential proclamation of invasion,” he explained.

He noted, “It would defy the text and structure of the AEA to defer to Congress declaring the need for offensive military actions—but not to the president engaging in defensive military actions to protect the homeland.”

He explained, “As commander in chief, the president ‘is responsible for the defense of the country from the moment he enters office until the moment he leaves.'”

Which is why, the authority to state a danger of invasion rests with him.

And the law itself states that it can be used on a “public proclamation” by the president of the danger.