Repeal Alien Enemies Act

Full Title:
Neighbors Not Enemies Act

Summary#

This bill would repeal the Alien Enemies Act, the federal law now codified at 50 U.S.C. 21–24. The main change is to remove that statutory authority that governs how the government may treat noncitizens of a country with which the United States is at war. The broad aim, suggested by the title, is to end a long-standing wartime authority that treats some foreign nationals as “enemy” aliens.

Key points:

  • Main change: It repeals the four sections of the Revised Statutes known as the Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. 21–24).
  • Legal effect: The president and federal agencies would no longer rely on that specific statute for actions described in those sections.
  • No replacement: The bill does not add a new law or substitute procedures; it simply removes the named statutes.
  • Scope: The change would matter mainly in situations where the United States is at war or declares war and in policies about noncitizens from enemy nations.
  • Immediate effect: There is no transition language in the bill about how ongoing uses of the Act would be handled.

What it means for you#

  • Noncitizen residents and visitors: If the United States declares war, the specific legal route set out in the Alien Enemies Act would no longer be available to federal officials. This could affect how the government handles detention, removal, or restrictions on noncitizens from the enemy country.
  • Federal government (President, DOJ, DHS): Agencies that previously relied on this statute for wartime actions would lose that statutory tool. They might need to use other laws or authorities during a war.
  • Courts and lawyers: Cases that turn on the Alien Enemies Act would no longer be decided under those sections. Existing case law that interprets the Act could become less relevant.
  • Military and national security planners: Repeal could require adjustments to planning for how to handle foreign nationals in a declared war, depending on what other authorities are available.
  • General public: For most peacetime situations there would likely be no immediate change. The effect is mainly in wartime scenarios.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • There is no fiscal note, budget estimate, or other public analysis provided with the bill text supplied here.
  • Repealing the statute could change administrative or legal costs in wartime, but the bill does not provide estimates.
  • Any costs would depend on what alternative authorities federal agencies use and how courts interpret the repeal.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to remove a long-standing wartime legal power that identifies some noncitizens as “enemy” aliens.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that repeal could reduce the risk of discriminatory or broad wartime restrictions on people who live in the United States but are nationals of a country with which the U.S. is at war.
  • Repealing the Act could be seen as aligning law with modern civil‑liberties standards and reducing a tool that has historical uses critics view as problematic.
  • Because the bill only repeals the statute, supporters could argue it eliminates a specific legal basis without creating new procedures that might expand government power.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that removing the statute would limit a clear legal tool available to the president and agencies during a declared war, possibly creating gaps in authority for handling enemy nationals.
  • The bill does not explain what should replace the repealed authority, so it is unclear how federal agencies should act in wartime without that statute.
  • Repeal could create legal uncertainty for planners and courts about detention, removal, or other measures involving foreign nationals from an enemy country.
  • There may be trade-offs between protecting individual rights and preserving flexible government powers in national‑security emergencies; the bill does not resolve that balance.

What is unclear:

  • The bill does not say whether repeal affects related laws, treaties, or ongoing cases that reference the Alien Enemies Act.
  • The bill does not describe how existing or future wartime needs should be handled in place of the repealed sections.