[UNITED STATES] On Wednesday, a US appeals court maintained a lower court's temporary stay on the Trump administration's deportation of certain Venezuelan immigrants on an obscure 18th-century law.
The decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a setback for Republican President Donald Trump, who argued that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's two-week ban on deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act infringed on the executive's authority to make national security decisions. A three-judge panel decided 2-1 to preserve Boasberg's deportation halt, with U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, nominated by Trump during his first term, dissenting.
On March 15, Trump utilized the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, aiming to expedite removals with a law best known for interning Japanese, Italian, and German immigrants during WWII. The subsequent legal battle over the move has exposed Trump's attempts to coerce the federal judiciary, a coequal department of government that acts as a check on executive power.
Following a court challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union, Boasberg temporarily halted deportations under the Alien Enemies Act on March 15. However, the Trump administration authorized two planes that were already in the air to continue to El Salvador, where the US handed over 238 Venezuelan detainees to Salvadoran authorities for placement in the country's "Terrorism Confinement Center."
The verdict came as US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited in El Salvador on Wednesday to inspect a massive prison housing Venezuelans deported by the US. Noem, a vocal supporter of Trump's immigration enforcement, also intends to meet with El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele, whose Trump-aligned country is keeping the migrants in exchange for $6 million.
Many of the deported Venezuelan migrants' families refute the allegations of gang involvement. Lawyers representing one of the deportees, a Venezuelan professional soccer player and young coach, claimed that U.S. officials mistakenly labeled him a gang member because of a tattoo of a crown honoring his favorite team, Real Madrid.
In explaining her decision to uphold Boasberg's ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, a Democratic President Barack Obama appointee, stated that the government did not give the migrants the opportunity to contest the government's claim that they were members of Tren de Aragua before deporting them. "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here," Millett said at a hearing on Monday on the Trump administration's request that the appeals court block Boasberg's order.
Drew Ensign, Trump's lawyer, answered, "We certainly dispute the Nazi analogy." U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of Republican President George H.W. Bush, stated it was unclear whether Tren de Aragua's presence in the United States constituted an act of war under the Alien Enemies Act.
"An invasion is a military affair, not one of migration," Henderson stated in her decision on Wednesday. Drew Ensign, Trump's lawyer, claimed on Monday that the judge had no right to question the president's foreign policy decisions. In a dissenting judgment, Walker stated, "The government likely faces irreparable harm to ongoing, highly sensitive international diplomacy and national-security operations."
Walker also stated that he would have reversed Boasberg's prohibition because the migrants' case should have been heard in Texas, where they are jailed, rather than Washington, D.C. The Trump administration may petition the United States Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to hear the issue. Boasberg is independently determining whether the Trump administration violated his order by neglecting to return deportation flights after it was issued.
The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, was initially intended as part of the larger Alien and Sedition Acts, which sought to defend the United States from foreign dangers during times of war or declared hostilities. Historically, it has been used sparingly, with the most noteworthy application occurring during World War II to intern people from Axis-aligned countries. The Trump administration's current interpretation of the Act differs significantly from its conventional use, as it targets individuals based on claimed gang affiliations rather than national origin or war-related acts.
Critics contend that using the Alien Enemies Act in this case is not just an incorrect application of the law, but also a potential violation of due process rights. The Act was intended to address evident and immediate risks to national security, not to speed up deportations based on unproven gang links. The ACLU's legal case raises worries about the possibility of executive abuse and the necessity for judicial oversight to preserve individual rights.
The situation in El Salvador, where the deported Venezuelans are being kept, complicates matters. The Salvadoran government's agreement to imprison the migrants in exchange for financial aid raises concerns regarding the reasons for the deportation and the conditions under which the migrants are being held. Human rights groups are concerned about the treatment of deportees and the possibility of violations of international human rights standards.
Judge Justin Walker's dissenting opinion emphasizes the ongoing argument about the balance of authority between the administration and the judiciary. Walker's claim that the right venue for the case was Texas, where the migrants are imprisoned, reflected a larger debate over jurisdiction and the appropriate forums for challenging executive acts. This dispute is expected to continue as the case advances to the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority may have a substantial influence on the outcome.
The Trump administration's prospective Supreme Court appeal highlights the case's high stakes. The judgment might create a precedent for future uses of the Alien Enemies Act, as well as further define the scope of executive authority in immigration and national security. Legal experts are closely monitoring the situation, as the case might have far-reaching consequences for both immigrants' rights and the balance of power within the United States government.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
