Key Takeaways
• Trump DOJ allowed ICE to enter homes and arrest without warrant using the Alien Enemies Act in March 2025.
• Over 200 Venezuelans, mainly linked to Tren de Aragua, were arrested based on appearance or loose suspicion.
• The Supreme Court restored due process, requiring at least 36 hours before removal and a chance for judicial review.
In March 2025, a decision from the Trump DOJ changed the standards for how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers could go about entering homes and arresting people. The memo made use of an old law—the Alien Enemies Act (AEA)—which dates back to 1798, to give ICE much wider powers than before. This decision affected mostly Venezuelan nationals suspected of links with Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang considered hostile by the government.
Let’s break down exactly what happened, why it matters, and what it has meant for immigrants, law enforcement, and the rule of law in the United States 🇺🇸.
What Did the Trump DOJ Do?
The Department of Justice, under President Trump, issued a secret memorandum that gave new orders to ICE officers across the United States 🇺🇸. The DOJ’s memo said ICE could enter people’s homes and take people into custody, even if the agents did not have a search warrant signed by a judge.
This order relied on the Alien Enemies Act, a law first created over two centuries ago. The Act allows the president to take special action against people from countries the United States 🇺🇸 is at war with, or sees as hostile, when there is a declared war or “invasion.”
The March 2025 memo announced that ICE agents would have the right to enter homes without a warrant in order to arrest people believed to be “alien enemies.” The memo said that as long as officers had a “reasonable belief” that a person fell under this label, they could go ahead and act fast, even skipping the usual paperwork.
- Officers were told they should get a signed “Warrant of Apprehension and Removal” for an arrest—but if it was not practical to wait, they could act without it.
- The guidance says, “This power encompasses entering the residence of an Alien Enemy to execute an AEA apprehension when it is impractical to first secure signed Notice Warrant Appreh and Removal.”
How Did the Memo Define “Alien Enemy”?
The Trump DOJ expanded the meaning of “alien enemy” far beyond what most previous administrations had ever considered.
- The memo said that anyone over 14 years old, who was a Venezuelan citizen, and who was believed to be connected—even loosely—to the Tren de Aragua gang, could be an “alien enemy.”
- Officers sometimes used simple clues such as tattoos, clothes, or who someone spent time with, to decide if a person was linked to the gang.
- This raised concerns, because such signs can be misleading. For example, some people with tattoos unrelated to the gang were mistakenly labeled as dangerous.
People quickly worried that this policy could lead to racial profiling, where someone is judged solely by how they look or what language they speak, rather than what they have done. Analysis from VisaVerge.com suggests that such broad definitions in immigration enforcement have often led to mistakes, wrongful arrests, and a chilling effect in immigrant communities.
What Happened Next? How Many People Were Affected?
The new policy led to ICE officers across the country entering homes and making arrests without having to go to court for a warrant first.
- Within just a few weeks after the memo, reports say over 200 people had already been arrested or deported under the new rules.
- In many cases, people were detained simply based on how they dressed, wore their hair, or whether they had certain tattoos, even if they had no real ties to any gang.
This meant that not only people who had broken the law, but many who had only small or no connection to suspected groups, risked losing their homes, being detained, or facing deportation.
Many of those picked up by ICE were not given the chance to see a judge before being forced to leave the United States 🇺🇸.
What About the Right to Due Process?
One of the biggest concerns was that the Trump DOJ memo went around long-standing civil protections built into the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment normally says that law enforcement officers must get a search warrant, signed by a judge, before entering someone’s home.
Here’s what was different under the DOJ memo:
- No need for an arrest warrant: ICE officers could arrest people without first getting approval from a judge or even an administrative official.
- No right to a hearing: People arrested in this way could be denied a basic court hearing to defend themselves or explain their situation.
- No appeal rights or judicial review: Those taken into custody could also be blocked from turning to a judge to review their case or stop deportation.
- All these steps—warrants, hearings, and appeals—have traditionally acted as a check on government power, giving people a chance to defend themselves or stop mistakes.
A line from the DOJ memo, quoted by Reason magazine, puts it plainly: “A judicial or administrative arrest warrant is not necessary… This authority includes entering an Alien Enemy’s residence… where circumstances render it impracticable [to] first obtain… [a] Warrant…”
Did Anyone Try to Challenge These Changes?
Yes, many immigration rights groups, legal advocates, and some politicians strongly criticized the new policy and quickly filed lawsuits. They claimed the policy violated people’s rights and put immigrants at risk of unfair treatment.
The lawsuits argued:
- The memo ignored bedrock legal protections from unreasonable searches and seizures.
- The new way of labeling “alien enemies” was too vague and could lead to innocent people being punished.
- Detaining people based solely on officers’ field judgment could devastate families and entire communities.
Federal courts soon stepped in to look at these claims.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
After a wave of lawsuits, the Supreme Court of the United States 🇺🇸 got involved in early April 2025. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that anyone detained under the Alien Enemies Act must get basic due process protections. This means:
- Detainees must be given at least 36 hours from their arrest before any removal (deportation) can take place.
- During this time, they must have an opportunity to challenge the government’s orders through a process called a habeas corpus petition—a way to ask a judge to decide if a detention or deportation is lawful.
Lower courts also rejected the view that removals under the Alien Enemies Act were completely beyond judicial review. This means judges still have some power to oversee or block government actions that cross the line. Those who are detained have the right, at least, to have their case considered by a court before being kicked out of the country.
How Does This Affect You or People You Know?
If you are a noncitizen, especially one from a country considered “hostile” under law, policies like these could put you at risk for sudden arrest or deportation. You may not have as many rights as a U.S. citizen, especially during times of war or national emergencies. But the Supreme Court’s decision shows that there are still some protections: you cannot be deported right away without any chance to speak up for yourself.
If you know someone who was arrested by ICE without a warrant and suspects their detention is based on the Alien Enemies Act, it’s important to know:
- They must get a minimum of 36 hours before removal to challenge the order.
- Legal aid groups often help people file habeas corpus petitions, giving them a chance to tell their side to a court.
If you are worried about your status, or someone else’s, you can find more information and rights about immigration enforcement and removal proceedings at the official U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.
Why Does This Matter for the Rule of Law?
This entire episode raises big questions about how much power the government should have, especially in times of national stress.
On one side, the Trump DOJ and supporters argue that swift action is needed when gangs or groups from other countries might pose a real danger inside the United States 🇺🇸, and that old laws like the Alien Enemies Act give the president these broad powers during emergencies.
On the other side, advocates for immigrant rights, many lawyers, and some judges warn that giving law enforcement too much power can lead to abuse, targeting innocent people, and a loss of basic freedoms the United States 🇺🇸 has long valued.
Let’s look at some key points for both sides:
- Government Power: The government claims it needs to act fast, especially if security is at risk, and old statutes like the Alien Enemies Act let it do so legally.
- Civil Rights: But critics say this power should never mean ignoring basic fairness, like the need for a warrant, a hearing, or a real chance to fight an accusation.
- Community Impact: Many fear that measures like this encourage discrimination, make entire communities feel unsafe, and break up families for reasons that may have little or no connection to real security threats.
How Did Immigration and Customs Enforcement Respond?
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers followed the Trump DOJ’s memo, even as legal cases unfolded. Agents were told to act on reasonable belief, meaning they did not need hard evidence before acting—simply a good reason to think someone fit the new definition of “alien enemy.”
- This led some officers to rely on surface signs, like how someone looked or dressed, instead of solid proof.
- In the weeks after the policy was announced, ICE did not always get a signed Warrant of Apprehension and Removal before entering homes.
- Sometimes, ICE agents entered homes in the early morning or late at night, creating fear in communities.
ICE’s job is to enforce immigration laws and protect public safety, but these actions show how fast those goals can come into conflict with personal privacy, due process, and civil rights.
If you want to know more about ICE’s official enforcement actions and authority, you can read about it directly at the ICE official website. This resource explains how ICE usually works with local law enforcement and what programs are in place.
Is This Likely to Happen Again?
History shows that broad use of the Alien Enemies Act is rare, but it is on the books and can be used by any president during war or emergencies. The key lesson is that even old laws can resurface during times of stress, and each time, courts and the public must decide how much power is too much.
Changes in policy tend to come fast during emergencies, worry many legal experts. In these moments, it is important to pay close attention, ask questions, and push for fairness for all—citizens and noncitizens alike.
What Should Immigrants, Families, and Advocates Do Now?
- Stay informed about your rights and any changes in immigration enforcement. Websites like VisaVerge.com and official government sources can help you stay up to date.
- If ICE comes to your home, ask for identification and whether they have a signed warrant. Without it, you are not required to let them in unless it falls under very limited exceptions allowed by law.
- If you or someone you know is detained under a claim of being an “alien enemy,” act quickly. Contact a lawyer or trusted rights group, and make use of the 36-hour window for court review.
- Document all encounters with ICE and keep records of any papers or forms they provide. Official paperwork such as a “Notice to Appear” or “Warrant of Apprehension and Removal” matters greatly.
Final Thoughts
The Trump DOJ’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, and its authorization for ICE to enter homes without a search warrant, marked a strong break from norms protecting due process. By labeling a wide group as “alien enemies” and letting ICE act quickly, the policy aimed at security but came with big costs to civil freedoms.
Federal courts have pushed back, setting limits that require at least a basic form of due process. Even in emergencies, the rule of law and the rights of noncitizens have supporters in the legal system, making it clear that balance must always be found between security and fairness for everyone in the United States 🇺🇸.
Learn Today
Alien Enemies Act → A 1798 law allowing the U.S. president to act against nationals from enemy countries during war or emergency.
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) → A U.S. federal agency in charge of enforcing immigration laws and removing unauthorized immigrants.
Due Process → Legal requirement ensuring fair treatment and judicial review before someone loses liberty, property, or immigration status.
Warrant of Apprehension and Removal → An official document authorizing law enforcement to detain and deport an individual from the U.S.
Habeas Corpus → A legal process letting detainees challenge their detention in court to ensure it is lawful.
This Article in a Nutshell
In March 2025, Trump’s DOJ empowered ICE to enter homes and detain suspected “alien enemies” without warrants, targeting Venezuelans linked to Tren de Aragua. Over 200 arrests followed. The Supreme Court later insisted on minimum due process, granting detainees 36 hours and court access before deportation could proceed.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• US consular officers tighten rules on birth tourism visa applications
• Disabled people in ICE detention warn of risk in overcrowded jails
• ICE detained Mahmoud Khalil without a warrant, court records reveal
• Italy National Type D Apprenticeship Visa: Who Qualifies for an Internship
• Immigration check-ins now carry greater risk of ICE detention
