A divided federal appeals court has temporarily suspended President Donald Trump’s authority to swiftly deport individuals believed to be linked to a Venezuelan gang under the Alien Enemies Act. On Wednesday, a panel from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1, allowing two lower court injunctions that prevent Trump from utilizing this extensive wartime power to remain in effect while a legal challenge concerning the president’s interpretation of the law is pending.

Since US District Judge James Boasberg issued the orders on March 15, they have ignited considerable legal and political controversy. Questions have emerged regarding whether Boasberg’s court order was deliberately disregarded, especially after two flights transporting individuals deported under the act took off during an emergency hearing and did not return. Boasberg and the Justice Department have been at odds over the DOJ’s reluctance to provide additional information about these flights, while Trump has called for Boasberg’s impeachment, leading to an unusual reprimand from Chief Justice John Roberts.

To enable the deportation of migrants alleged to be associated with the Tren de Aragua gang, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which grants the president significant power to target and expel undocumented immigrants. This legislation is intended for use during wartime or in circumstances where a foreign nation has invaded or threatened to invade the United States.

The appeals court’s decision on Wednesday was unsigned. However, Judges Karen Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, and Patricia Millett, appointed by former President Barack Obama, provided comprehensive opinions detailing their rationale for supporting the court’s ruling. Throughout the proceedings, Henderson emphasized the concern that permitting Trump to enforce the law “risks sending plaintiffs to a country that is not their homeland,” where they could be subjected to torture in infamous prisons.Judge Justin Walker, appointed by Trump during his initial term, focused his dissent on a procedural matter he raised during the case’s oral arguments. He asserted that the grievances of those who were deported should be resolved in a Texas court rather than in Washington, DC. “The district court’s orders risk causing irreparable harm to sensitive negotiations with foreign entities concerning national security issues,” he stated, alluding to the Trump administration.

Walker maintained that the plaintiffs’ preference to initiate the lawsuit in Washington is outweighed by the potential damage “along with the asserted public interest in the swift removal of dangerous aliens.”

It is anticipated that the Trump administration will pursue an appeal of the ruling to the US Supreme Court. Early in the proceedings, the Justice Department challenged Boasberg’s orders. Following a more comprehensive ruling from the judge regarding the merits of Trump’s application of wartime law for these deportations, the case is expected to return to the DC Circuit in the upcoming weeks. In explaining her reasoning for wanting to uphold the contested orders, Millett appeared particularly attentive to the broader context of the case. She noted that the district court has approached this matter with careful consideration and caution, and its directives are designed solely to maintain the current situation until significant and unprecedented legal issues can be addressed in the upcoming preliminary injunction hearing.

Millett stressed that supporting the administration at this point would effectively invalidate the Plaintiffs’ claims by placing them beyond the reach of their legal counsel or the court.

She also criticized the Trump administration’s claim that it had not breached Boasberg’s earlier bench order, which required the immediate cessation of any aircraft transporting migrants being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. DOJ attorneys have informed Boasberg that his written order, issued shortly after the pThe written order did not address any matters related to the aircraft; rather, it confirmed that the judge’s temporary restraining orders remained in force and that the administration was prohibited from deporting the migrants due to Trump’s proclamation invoking the law.

Millett stated, “I permit the district court to assess the merits of that argument first.” She continued, “It is completely unacceptable for the government to ask this court to suspend an order while simultaneously claiming to the district court that compliance was never required.” She also noted, “The district court cannot achieve the extraordinary relief of a TRO stay if the government is successful and the district court does not.