A coalition of 24 Republican-led states is throwing its support behind the Department of Justice and former President Donald Trump, endorsing his use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. This comes as a critical legal review of a previous setback for the Trump administration approaches early next year.

The Trump administration argues that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made a mistake by overturning Trump’s proclamation from March, which labeled TdA as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.” The administration claims the group has “thousands of members” engaged in “irregular warfare” and hostile activities against the U.S., with the alleged support of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Attorneys general from states including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, and Texas, among others, have joined forces to back the administration’s efforts. They emphasize the need for decisive action against gangs like TdA, which they claim are causing significant disruption within the United States.

The states assert that national interests are best protected when the President can rely on intelligence and national security experts to make decisions about potential threats, without undue interference from the judiciary in matters of national security discretion.

The attorneys general further argue that determining the existence of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” is a decision meant for the political branches of government, not the judiciary, underscoring their stance that such decisions are inherently political rather than judicial.

It was clear during June oral arguments that there was some uneasiness among the majority of a three-judge panel. By September, the panel, led by U.S. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, concluded that Trump’s invocation of the 1798 wartime law failed for the reasons that there was “no invasion or predatory incursion” afoot under the meaning of the statute, that the U.S. is neither at war with TdA nor Venezuela, and that the president’s admittedly “broad discretion” was reviewable by the courts.

Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Joe Biden appointee, in holding that the Trump administration’s reliance on the AEA statute was blocked and that the government would have to rely instead on other statutory authority to remove alleged “foreign terrorists” from the country.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, clearly warmed to the administration’s arguments in favor of Trump’s authority and ended up penning the lone dissent — one which the government is embracing in its request that the whole 5th Circuit second-guess the panel’s ruling. Oldham accused the majority of essentially making themselves president, treating Trump like some “run-of-the-mill plaintiff,” and holding him to a different standard than any president ever.

“For 227 years, every President of every political party has enjoyed the same broad powers to repel threats to our Nation under the Alien Enemies Act (‘AEA’). And from the dawn of our Nation until President Trump took office a second time, courts have never second-guessed the President’s invocation of that Act. Not once,” he began, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court has “time and time again” said the president’s “declaration of an invasion, insurrection, or incursion is conclusive.”

“For President Trump, however, the rules are different. Today the majority holds that President Trump is just an ordinary civil litigant. His declaration of a predatory incursion is not conclusive. Far from it. Rather, President Trump must plead sufficient facts—as if he were some run-of-the-mill plaintiff in a breach-of-contract case—to convince a federal judge that he is entitled to relief,” Oldham went on. “That contravenes over 200 years of legal precedent. And it transmogrifies the least-dangerous branch into robed crusaders who get to playact as multitudinous Commanders in Chief. I respectfully but emphatically dissent.”

The DOJ consequently sought review by the full — en banc — 5th Circuit, and the docket shows that the en banc oral argument has been set for Jan. 22.

Like the DOJ, the red state amici curiae or friends of the court are leaning heavily on Oldham’s dissent to make their case that the courts have no say when the president finds an “invasion or a predatory incursion” actually “exists.”

“[J]udicial review of the President’s determinations is foreclosed for at least two reasons. First, as ably explained by Judge Oldham in his dissent from the panel majority’s opinion, some statutes ‘preclude judicial review,’ and the AEA is ‘such a statute.’ This position finds support in nearly ‘200 years of legal precedent,’” the AGs said. “Second, to the extent that this Court chooses to analyze the case under the framework of the political question doctrine, it also forecloses review of the President’s determination.”

The 5th Circuit filing in the ongoing AEA fight comes not long after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia shut down a federal judge’s contempt inquiry into the government’s mid-March AEA deportations. Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had ordered up witness testimony for this week to help him determine whether DHS Secretary Kristi Noem should be referred for prosecution, in connection with a potential “willful violation” of a court order blocking deportations.

The D.C. Circuit’s stay means that inquiry will be stalled into the new year.