The bill repeals sections 4067–4070 of the Revised Statutes (codified at 50 U.S.C. 21–24), commonly known as the Alien Enemies Act. Those provisions historically provided a statutory mechanism for the federal government to apprehend, restrain, remove, or otherwise control noncitizen nationals of a country with which the United States is at war.
This repeal strips that discrete statutory tool from the federal code without replacing it. That matters because it removes a long‑standing, if little‑used, express grant of wartime authority and creates immediate questions about what authorities the executive will use instead (immigration statutes, criminal law, or constitutional war powers).
The change will affect national security operations, deportation practice, and civil liberties litigation in any future declared war involving the United States and another state.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill strikes 50 U.S.C. 21–24 from the United States Code, eliminating the Alien Enemies Act’s statutory text. It does not create replacement authority, transitional procedures, or new oversight mechanisms.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies that might detain or remove foreign nationals in wartime (DHS, DOJ, DOD) and the noncitizen nationals of any country the U.S. declares war against. Civil liberties organizations, immigration counsel, and courts that adjudicate detention claims will also be directly affected.
Why It Matters
The repeal removes an explicit, centuries‑old statutory basis for handling ‘enemy’ nationals in declared wars, forcing reliance on other statutes or the President’s constitutional powers. That shift changes operational options for agencies and will likely generate litigation over the proper legal basis for wartime measures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Alien Enemies Act dates back to the late 18th century and once formed part of the federal toolkit for handling foreign nationals during declared wars. It has rarely been invoked in modern times, but it remains on the books as an express statutory authorization for actions—apprehension, restraint, removal, and related controls—targeted at nationals of a hostile power when Congress or the President has declared war.
This bill simply removes that text from the U.S. Code. It does not reallocate the powers it described, add procedural safeguards, or instruct agencies how to proceed.
In practice, repeal means the government loses one clear statutory route it might have used to detain or expel enemy‑nationals; federal actors will need to rely on other authorities—chief among them the Immigration and Nationality Act (civil removal and detention), federal criminal statutes, the President’s constitutional war powers, or military detention authorities—each of which carries different procedures, standards of proof, and review mechanisms.Because the bill contains no savings clause or transition language, any references in other statutes, regulations, contracts, or executive practice to the repealed sections will no longer point to operative law. That raises a set of practical questions: will agencies update directives and field guidance, will courts see new challenges testing alternative detention bases, and will Congress be asked to pass replacement legislation that balances national security needs with clearer statutory safeguards?
Those are the operational and legal gaps this repeal creates, not policy prescriptions for how they should be filled.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals sections 4067–4070 of the Revised Statutes (codified at 50 U.S.C. 21–24), the statutory text known as the Alien Enemies Act.
The repeal contains no replacement authority, no procedural rules, and no explicit effective‑date language beyond enactment norms.
Agencies that previously could point to the Alien Enemies Act will have to rely on other legal authorities (immigration law, criminal statutes, military detention statutes, or constitutional powers) to take similar actions.
Because the text is struck without a savings clause, downstream regulatory references and any executive orders tied specifically to those sections will lose their statutory anchor.
The repeal narrows the statutory toolkit for handling foreign nationals in declared wars but does not by itself prevent the executive branch from acting under other legal bases; it mainly removes an explicit congressional authorization.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the “Neighbors Not Enemies Act.” This is purely stylistic but signals the bill’s focus on removing a statutory wartime detention authority rather than amending or supplementing it.
Repeal of the Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. 21–24)
Operatively, the section directs the removal of sections 4067–4070 of the Revised Statutes from the United States Code. That action deletes the statutory language authorizing specified wartime measures directed at nationals of enemy states. The repeal is categorical: it does not carve out exceptions, preserve procedures, or reference any alternative authorities, so the statutory text itself ceases to be law upon enactment.
No transitional or substitute provisions
Because the bill contains no saving clause, it leaves an implementation gap that agencies, courts, and Congress will have to address. Regulations, agency directives, and any past administrative practice that relied specifically on 50 U.S.C. 21–24 will no longer have that statutory underpinning. The absence of replacement language means the executive will lean on other statutes or constitutional arguments, and Congress would need to pass new legislation if it wants a clear statutory regime for wartime handling of foreign nationals.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Noncitizen residents and visitors from countries the U.S. might declare war against — they lose a discrete statutory basis for detention or removal targeted solely at 'enemy' nationals, reducing one legal pathway to broad, nationality‑based restrictions.
- Civil liberties and immigrant‑rights organizations — repeal eliminates a historical statute that civil‑liberties advocates have long criticized as enabling discriminatory wartime internment and may strengthen advocacy against nationality‑based detentions.
- Public defenders and immigration attorneys — fewer statutory hooks for nationality‑based detention simplifies some defensive strategies and shifts litigation toward other authorities with different burdens and remedies.
- Communities with large immigrant populations from potential adversary states — removal of this statute lowers the risk of a government action targeted solely on nationality without contemporaneous statutory justification.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Homeland Security (CBP, ICE) — loses an explicit statutory tool and must rely more heavily on the INA, criminal detention authorities, or ad hoc guidance; that shift may increase operational complexity and litigation risk.
- Department of Justice — will face more constitutional and statutory challenges as the executive pivots to alternative legal bases, and will likely litigate the scope of war‑time authorities more frequently.
- Department of Defense — if the military previously used or relied on the statute in planning, repeal may complicate options for handling foreign nationals captured or detained in the U.S. during declared war, requiring updated policies and coordination with civilian agencies.
- Federal courts — expect novel and potentially complex litigation testing the executive’s alternative bases for detention and removal, increasing judicial workload and doctrinal questions about wartime authority.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic dilemma: remove an old statute associated with nationality‑based wartime controls to protect civil liberties and avoid a legally sanctioned tool for broad internment, or preserve clear statutory authority that gives the executive a predictable legal instrument in times of declared war. Tightening legal restraints protects individuals from potential abuse but may leave agencies operating under less specific, patchwork authorities during crises; preserving the statute preserves clarity for national security operations but risks perpetuating a mechanism critics view as ripe for discriminatory application.
Repealing a single, old statute simplifies the code but does not eliminate the underlying policy trade‑offs that justified the Alien Enemies Act. The immediate legal effect is narrow and technical—the statutory text is gone—but the practical consequences are diffuse: agencies must choose among other legal authorities, each with its own procedures, standards, and constitutional contours.
That substitution can produce uneven protections: immigration detention is governed by administrative rules and immigration courts; military detention invokes a distinct regime of combatant status and habeas issues; criminal statutes require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and different custody frameworks. Repeal therefore shifts, rather than resolves, questions about how to balance security and individual liberty in wartime.
The bill also raises implementation questions that the text does not address. Without a savings clause, past executive actions premised solely on the repealed sections could prompt statutory‑interpretation disputes over whether related regulations survive and whether ongoing detentions must be re‑justified under alternative authorities.
International legal obligations (for example, treatment of civilians and detainees under the laws of war) remain relevant but do not provide a direct substitute for domestic statutory clarity. Finally, the repeal may spur Congress to draft replacement legislation with explicit procedural safeguards or oversight—an outcome that would reframe, rather than eliminate, the trade‑offs at stake.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.