The Trump administration faced tough questioning from a judge regarding its use of a rarely utilized wartime law aimed at deporting Venezuelans suspected of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang. This development follows a significant judicial examination of immigration policies tied to national security.
This wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, was first invoked during World War II, targeting nationals from countries such as Japan, Germany, and Italy as “alien enemies.” Judge Patricia Millett remarked, “Nazis received better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than what has been experienced here,” highlighting the lack of due process in recent deportations.
Concerns were raised when Millett noted that individuals being deported were not informed of their destinations or given adequate notice of their removals, particularly in reference to Venezuelans deported to El Salvador earlier this month.
Lawyers from the Justice Department urged the appeals court to overturn a temporary restraining order blocking deportations, which was enacted by district court Judge James Boasberg. The upcoming ruling could influence whether the case is escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This legal battle over wartime powers is crucial to Trump’s broader immigration strategy and his push to expand executive authority.
Although the panel of judges did not issue an immediate decision, anticipation surrounds their forthcoming ruling. Judge Millett appeared to align with arguments from immigrant rights advocates seeking to halt swift deportations, while Judge Karen Henderson’s stance remains uncertain.
If the judges lift the current restrictions, approximately 258 individuals could potentially face removal proceedings under the Alien Enemies Act for alleged connections to Tren de Aragua.
Justice Department Claims Pause Intrudes on Executive Power
The Justice Department’s attorneys characterized the restraining order as “an unprecedented and enormous intrusion” on the president’s authority, arguing that challenging the law could impact international relations, particularly regarding re-settlement agreements with El Salvador and other nations.
Drew Ensign, the leading government attorney, faced pointed inquiries regarding the feasibility of individuals detained under the Alien Enemies Act being able to contest their allegations of gang affiliation.
Millett expressed concerns about the government’s failure to provide due process, emphasizing that the administration must comply with the Constitution and applicable laws.
Judge Justin Walker indicated that those detained could pursue legal recourse through habeas petitions, but he suggested that the lawsuit should have been filed in Texas where the plaintiffs are detained, rather than in D.C.
The judges are expected to determine whether the government can proceed with deportations, as current litigation remains active.
D.C. Court Maintains Moratorium on Deportations
Earlier, Judge Boasberg reaffirmed his 14-day suspension on the administration’s ability to execute deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, emphasizing the need for individualized hearings for individuals being deported.
Boasberg ruled that those contesting their deportations should not be removed until the courts have adjudicated their challenges. He also allowed immigrant rights groups to submit a preliminary injunction, potentially extending the court’s halt on the use of wartime powers.
In a related directive, Boasberg required Trump’s cabinet members to decide by Tuesday whether they would invoke privilege to withhold information concerning deportation flights.
This ongoing legal discourse indicates a pivotal moment in immigration policy and the balance of powers between the executive branch and judicial oversight.
