BREAKING: Trump Tried to Bypass the Constitution — This Federal Judge Just Stopped Him Cold
On May 6th, a federal judge blocked Trump’s unconstitutional deportation scheme and sent a message that no president is above the law
Imagine waking up in a cell, told you must immediately board a plane to a foreign prison, not for any crime you committed, but because a president simply declared you an “enemy.”
On May 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein slammed the brakes on exactly that scenario. Judge Hellerstein’s ruling blocks President Trump’s attempt to use an 18th-century law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to sweep up Venezuelan migrants and deport them without hearings or legal process. It was a rare moment of judicial clarity and courage.
Judge Hellerstein started his 22-page decision off strong:
This nation was founded on the “self-evident” truths “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [and] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Declaration of Independence, at ¶ 2 (1776). Our Constitution embodies these truths, in a limited government of enumerated powers, in its system of checks and balances separating the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and in its guarantee that neither citizen nor alien be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V; see Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210-12 (1982) (extending these protections to aliens).
The decision is clear, powerful and reminds us: in America, even the president must follow the law, respect due process, and honor the Constitution’s separation of powers.
What does this ruling mean for due process? What happens next? After more than 30 years in the courtroom, I’m breaking it all down, the implications, the fallout, and why this case matters, in this issue of Uncensored Objection.
A President's Wild Claim and a Judge’s Reality Check
President Trump’s March 2025 proclamation claimed that members of the Tren de Aragua gang were “perpetrating an invasion” of the United States. On that basis, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport all Venezuelan citizens in the country unlawfully, treating them as wartime enemies.
The result? Over 200 people shipped off to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, without notice or any chance to fight the decision. It was a draconian plan carried out in broad daylight, a gross abuse of power. Trump was effectively using a 225-year-old law, meant for declared wars, as a shortcut around Congress and American courts.
Judge Hellerstein saw through the ruse immediately. In his 22-page opinion, he pointed out that Congress and the Constitution place clear limits on such wartime powers. There is no war, no real invasion, no declared national emergency.
The Constitution reserves war-making to Congress, and even the Alien Enemies Act, long dormant since World War II, only kicks in during actual wartime or something akin to it. As Judge Hellerstein put it, Trump’s proclamation “was not validly invoked” because the facts on the ground simply don’t match the law’s requirements. He noted that Venezuela is not at war with the U.S., and there is no aggressive Venezuelan military campaign against America. Invoking war powers under these circumstances is legally indefensible, and deeply frightening.
Talking point: No war means no war powers. In the U.S., only Congress can declare war. And even if it did, the law still demands hearings for those caught up in it. Trump’s proclamation claimed an “invasion” by a gang, but that’s absurd. Judges immediately blocked this stunt, reminding us that the president cannot invent an enemy to bypass our democracy’s checks and balances.
Due Process Is Not a "Technicality"
At the heart of Hellerstein’s ruling is a simple, bedrock American promise: Due process protects everyone, citizen or not. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that the government cannot take away “life, liberty or property” without a fair hearing. Hellerstein noted that even foreign nationals detained in the U.S. are covered by this principle. Deporting people on the president’s say-so, without notice, without a hearing, and without any chance to contest the claims, violates this foundational right.
The Trump administration’s brief barely mentioned that part of the Alien Enemies Act. Hellerstein highlighted that the Act actually requires courts to give detainees “a full examination and hearing” before removal. In other words, even when this war power is in play, the Constitution still demands fairness.
Trump’s team wanted to sweep people out by helicopter, not through the courtroom. The judge wasn’t having it. He said that sending people off to an “evil jail” in El Salvador without court oversight would trample on our country’s core values.
Look, this isn’t just legal nitpicking. Due process is not a loophole, it’s a core American value. Every person in the U.S., regardless of where they’re from, deserves the right to tell their side of the story. If the president can strip away that right from one group, Venezuelan migrants, what’s to stop the next president from doing it to another group? It puts us all at risk.
In his fiery decision, Hellerstein even drew on tragic history, citing cases of people wrongfully deported overseas with no way back. Once someone is sent off, it can be impossible to undo. So the judge’s job was to stop this before it could happen again.
Talking point: “Due process” isn’t a legal trick to slow things down, it’s the promise of fairness that separates us from tyranny. When judges say you need a hearing, they’re not just being picky; they’re protecting everyone’s right to be heard before life-changing decisions are made.
The Alien Enemies Act: A Wartime Relic Misused
The Alien Enemies Act dates from 1798, when the U.S. feared war with France. It was used mostly during World War II to handle truly dangerous wartime immigrants (like enemy soldiers or spies). Three times in history it’s been invoked, always during declared wars. Today’s situation is entirely different: there is no formal war or invasion.
Yet Trump’s proclamation claims that “Tren de Aragua is perpetrating hostile actions” against the U.S., implying Venezuela is waging some shadow war. That’s a stretch. A gang kidnapping and extorting people is dangerous, yes, but it’s a criminal law matter, not a military invasion. Using a war law to address gang violence is like using a cannon to swat a fly. Congress has crime and immigration laws for a reason. By misapplying the Alien Enemies Act, Trump tried to sidestep those laws, bypass Congress, and throw out decades of legal protections. The courts saw that as an outrageous power grab.
Hellerstein’s ruling carefully explains that the Trump team “exceeded the scope” of the Alien Enemies Act. The law’s own text specifies it applies when an “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government occurs. Tren de Aragua is a criminal gang, not an army sent by a foreign government. Even the gang’s leaders aren’t Venezuelan government officials, they’re outlaws hiding out. By any reasonable reading, this is not the scenario the 1798 law anticipated.
In powerful terms, the judge declared that without war or invasion, there is no emergency to justify tearing people away from their lives without judicial review. He compared sending migrants to El Salvador (a country they did not come from and do not want to be sent to) to a “notoriously evil jail” where they have no recourse. Think about that: an American immigrant rights lawyer said Trump’s plan would send people to a “Gulag-type prison” with no due process. That’s exactly what Hellerstein and other judges are preventing.
Talking point: Ancient laws have limits. The Alien Enemies Act belongs to a bygone era of open wars. Using it now against migrants is like reading the Constitution and acting like it’s just a suggestion. Real emergencies that threaten our nation require real checks and careful legal steps, not a single decree.
A Republican Judge Joins the Chorus
It’s worth noting that this wasn’t just liberal judges talking. In Brownsville, Texas, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a Trump appointee, reached a similar conclusion weeks earlier. He permanently blocked the removal of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act in Texas. Judge Rodriguez bluntly rejected the White House’s arguments, saying the U.S. was not facing an invasion. His order, and now Hellerstein’s, show that the judiciary is not a rubber stamp for political schemes.
These judges emphasized the same point: You can’t declare war on paper and lock people up without court oversight. Just as Hellerstein used the law to shield those in New York, Judge Rodriguez protected people in Texas from being deported under this flimsy pretext. The fact that a Trump-appointed judge in Texas and a Clinton-appointed judge in New York both shot this plan down should send a clear message: this isn’t about politics, it’s about upholding the Constitution.
No less authority than the Supreme Court has weighed in. In a related case this year, the High Court said Venezuelan migrants could be removed under the Alien Enemies Act only if they are given notice and a chance to challenge it in court. Even the Supreme Court recognized that due process must apply. It never said the president has a blank check to deport without hearings.
Talking point: Not a partisan issue, it’s about the Constitution. Judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans agree: this use of the Alien Enemies Act is unlawful. The president can’t just sidestep judges and Congress by claiming a fake “invasion.”
The True Values at Stake
What’s happening here is not just a legal spat. It’s about what kind of country we want to be. Due process, checks and balances, human dignity, these aren’t optional extras. They are the essence of American democracy. When judges like Hellerstein stand up and enforce those values, they are protecting us all, not just the migrants involved.
Think about it: If the president could do this unchecked, today’s victims are Venezuelans, but tomorrow it could be another group. Someone’s political opponents could be declared “alien enemies” for convenience. The president would be playing judge, jury, and executioner, ignoring Congress and courts. That is a hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies. By stopping the deportations, Judge Hellerstein and others are protecting the separation of powers that keep our government fair.
This fight is also a moral one. The idea of hauling thousands of people, many of them not criminals at all, to a faraway prison with no help, no appeal, and no compassion is morally outrageous. The judge described the victims’ plight: taken to a foreign country they had nothing to do with, locked in a notorious prison, indefinitely. Many were even here legally or abiding by immigration rules. They are fathers, brothers, sons. They are human beings, not pawns in a political game. An American judge, sworn to uphold justice, saw their humanity and said enough.
We must be just as outraged. It’s easy to feel distant from the idea of “enemy aliens” until the concept can be expanded to silence or expel anyone. The very principles behind Hellerstein’s decision — fairness, dignity, rule of law — are the bedrock of our republic.
What You Can Tell Your Neighbors
To summarize in simple terms what’s at stake, remember these points:
Rule of Law Over Autocracy: No president can invent an “enemy” to declare war on without Congress. The Alien Enemies Act is meant for actual wartime, not as a shortcut for tough immigration policies.
Due Process Protects All: Everyone in America deserves a fair hearing. It’s not a loophole; it’s expressed under the Constitution. If the government can deport people without notice, your rights can be next.
Judges Are Guardians: Courts from Texas to New York, even those led by Republican appointees, have said Trump overstepped his authority. They’re defending the American system where no one is above the law.
Humanity Matters: The migrants caught in this plan include legal residents, family men, victims of crime, not soldiers. They shouldn’t end up forgotten in a remote prison without recourse.
Democracy Is Fragile: Each time a president treats laws as suggestions, it chips away at our democracy. Hellerstein’s decision is a reminder that we must guard our institutions vigilantly.
We should feel grateful and relieved that Judge Hellerstein, and Judge Rodriguez before him, stepped in. Their rulings are pillars holding up our Constitution’s promise. And as citizens, we should echo their stand: this overreach is dangerous and wrong. Presidents and their advisers must not be allowed to twist old laws into weapons against innocent people.
In the end, this is more than a legal dispute. It’s about what America stands for. It’s about making sure power is limited and the law is respected. Judge Hellerstein’s ruling doesn’t just stop an illegal deportation scheme, it reminds us of our core values. And it warns everyone in government: we take due process seriously in this country. That’s a lesson we all should remember and share.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
Related
I shared a link to Judge Hellerstein’s decision in the artice above but just in case you missed it, you can read it here.
The Conversation Doesn’t End Here. It Gets Smarter.
My free AI remembers every article, every fact, and every hot take. So if you’re still thinking about what you just read, talk to it. It’s your 24/7 wingman for breaking news, bold opinions, and deeper truth.
This post is free, but building a future rooted in truth and democracy takes real investment. If my work speaks to you, consider supporting—because independent journalism that actually gives a damn is worth backing.
