Tren de Aragua issue will depend on the court's interpretation of Alien Enemy Act from 1798

I am reading quite of few legal opinions, but none seem to want to address the underlying issue.

So apparently there are many arguing that Trump is wrong about the AEA because it is old and has only been used three times in history. These arguments suggest that what is happening should be considered more in line with more recent court rulings that even enemy combatants and such are provided with certain legal protections. One said protection would be to be given a hearing. According to McCarthy for instance, the USSC would have to dismantle or ignore several rulings that took place post 9-11 to rule with the Government on this.

What seems puzzling to me is the idea that an old law is no longer a real law and that apparently we how depend on judges (not congress) to change or decide to ignore a law. According to McCarthy, it should be up to Congress to provide the Administration cover for this sort of action and that it absolutely should be litigated in court. This, in spite, of the law not requiring any Congressional action or allowing for judicial review.

Now I would have thought that it would be up to Congress to revoke or amend the existing law if we wanted that law to require some form of Congressional approval, if we wanted some sort of judicial review, or if we wanted to remove it all together from the legal books. But alas, that is apparently not how our constitution works anymore. Now we are a constitution led by people in the robes and what they say goes and the two other branches of the Government should be lucky to still even have their branches in tact. Who knows how long that will last.