This is an overview of law applications that I’ve noted before….As Pro Publica notes, “Donald Trump dusts off a long-settled law, reinterprets it and attempts to wield it in unprecedented, far-reaching ways. The courts slam the brakes, saying the president’s creative reimagining is just plain illegal….One problem for Trump, is that courts are increasingly skeptical of Trump’s claims about the supposed emergencies or national-security exigencies that he has claimed as justifications for deploying these seldom-used statutes.”.
A 1798 law to deport persons
Trump’s has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, last used in the World War II era. The drafters of the law sought to help repel “invasions” or “predatory incursions” perpetrated by rival governments. At the time, a war with France loomed. And for more than two centuries, presidents invoked the law only three times: during the War of 1812 against British subjects, World War I against German immigrants and World War II against nationals of Japan, Germany, Italy and several other countries.
Following the U.S. entry into World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt invoked the Alien Enemies Act to authorize the apprehension, detention, and removal of nationals from enemy countries, including Japan, Germany, and Italy. This led to the internment of thousands of individuals, many of whom were long-term U.S. residents. While the majority of Japanese Americans interned were U.S. citizens detained under Executive Order 9066, the Alien Enemies Act specifically targeted non-citizen nationals of enemy states. The act provided the legal framework for these wartime measures, which have since been widely criticized for violating civil liberties.
During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson invoked the Alien Enemies Act to detain and restrict the movements of nationals from countries with which the U.S. was at war, primarily targeting German and Austro-Hungarian nationals. Many were interned in camps or subjected to surveillance and reporting requirements. The act allowed the government to act swiftly against individuals deemed potential threats due to their nationality, reflecting the heightened suspicion and xenophobia of the era.
On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10903, invoking the Act to authorize the apprehension and deportation of Venezuelan nationals aged 14 and older who are members of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua (TdA) and lack U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency.
“There is nothing in the AEA that justifies a finding that refugees migrating from Venezuela, or TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants, are engaged in an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion,’” U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled. “They do not seek to occupy territory, to oust American jurisdiction from any territory, or to ravage territory.”
A 1940 registration requirement for immigrants
The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, was enacted before World War II to counter perceived subversive threats. It had two main components: requiring all non-citizen adults in the U.S. to register and be fingerprinted, and criminalizing advocacy of violent overthrow of the government or membership in groups promoting such actions.
During WWII, it supported surveillance of Axis nationals; after the war, it became a tool in prosecuting communists during the Cold War. Notably, in Dennis v. United States (1951), Communist Party leaders were convicted under its provisions. However, later Supreme Court rulings, especially Yates v. United States (1957), limited its scope by protecting abstract political advocacy under the First Amendment. By the 1960s, prosecutions under the Act ceased. While its criminal provisions faded, the registration model resurfaced in later programs like the post-9/11 NSEERS system. The Alien Registration Act was folded into the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Executive Order 14159, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” was signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. This order reinstated enforcement of alien registration requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), mandating that all non-citizens aged 14 and older residing in the U.S. for more than 30 days register with the federal government, provide biometric information, and carry proof of registration at all times. Non-compliance could result in civil and criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment.
Pro Publica reports that a magistrate judge in Louisiana dismissed the first charges brought under this reinstated registration requirement. The judge ruled that prosecutors failed to demonstrate that the five defendants were even aware of the registration obligation, noting that the requirement had been “essentially defunct and abandoned for the past 70 years.” The Trump administration is appealing the decision to a district court judge.
Revoking student visas
Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), enacted in 1990, permits the deportation of noncitizens if the Secretary of State determines that their presence or activities in the U.S. could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
This clause has been rarely used. A 1996 case, Massieu v. Reno, challenged its constitutionality, with a district court finding it vague and granting excessive discretion to the executive branch. However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed this decision on procedural grounds without addressing the constitutional issues. Prior to the current administration, the provision had been applied only 15 times (per Wikipedia).
The provision has been used nearly always in cases that involved serious allegations of terrorism or subversive activities in the targets’ home countries. Secretary of State Rubio has deployed the provision to target campus activists who participated in anti-Israel protests. Rubio’s letter revoking green cards or visas for Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk and other people studying in the United States indicated that their conduct had been legal but that their continued presence and activities in the United States nevertheless “would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.”