South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley commended the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after it dismissed a legal challenge brought by suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua who were seeking to avoid removal from the United States.
The en banc Fifth Circuit dismissed the case on August 13 as moot after the Trump administration deported all three named plaintiffs through the Immigration and Nationality Act rather than the Alien Enemies Act they had been challenging. Because none of the plaintiffs remained in the country, the court ruled it no longer had jurisdiction to provide meaningful relief. The decision did not resolve the underlying legal question of whether Trump’s invocation of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act against alleged Tren de Aragua members was lawful.
“We must ensure that violent offenders are not allowed to enter or remain in the country,” Jackley said. “President Trump has the authority to remove such individuals, and the Court has affirmed that authority.”
Jackley was part of a 24-attorney general coalition that filed a brief supporting Trump’s authority to remove Tren de Aragua members under the Alien Enemies Act, arguing the power to remove noncitizens under that statute falls within the president’s national security responsibilities. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson led the coalition, which included attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The case stems from a March 2025 presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act — last used during World War II — to target Venezuelan nationals the administration claims are Tren de Aragua members. The Supreme Court had previously blocked removals under the act while the case proceeded, but stopped short of ruling on whether the invocation was lawful, instead sending the matter back to the Fifth Circuit. With the Fifth Circuit’s moot dismissal, the underlying legal question remains unresolved and could return to the courts.