Debate Arises Over Trump’s Use of Historic Law for Deportations
In New Orleans, a federal judge is examining President Donald Trump’s application of a centuries-old wartime statute to expel Venezuelan gang members. The central question: Can a president wield this law against a “British invasion” corrupting youth culture?
This inquiry, posed by Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, humorously referenced the 1960s’ panic over British bands like the Beatles. Drew Ensign, an assistant attorney general, argued that the president did have such authority and emphasized the political nature of national security issues.
Ensign highlighted the role of Congress as a check on presidential power in such hypothetical scenarios. This discussion unfolded during the administration’s challenge of a ruling by a panel within the 5th Circuit, known for its conservative stance, which determined that Trump misapplied the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked sparingly, reserved for conflicts like the War of 1812 and the two world wars. The panel sided with lower court judges and immigration attorneys who contended the law is meant for foreign powers, not criminal gangs.
The administration’s appeal brought the full 5th Circuit’s 17 judges to the courtroom. Lee Gelernt, representing the ACLU, argued that the gang’s actions fall under ordinary crime, not military conflict, emphasizing the act’s focus on wartime conditions.
Some judges expressed hesitation about questioning the president’s assessment of threats. Ensign underscored that the act covers situations of “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” asserting that court precedent supports presidential declarations of such occurrences.
Ensign further claimed that Trump alleged the gang’s operations were linked to the ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, though this assertion faced skepticism from law enforcement experts.
The timeline for the circuit’s decision remains uncertain, with the U.S. Supreme Court likely to make the ultimate determination on Trump’s actions’ constitutionality.
The Supreme Court has previously intervened in this legal tangle. Trump’s administration used the act to deport 252 Venezuelans to an infamous El Salvador prison, arguing U.S. judges lacked jurisdiction. The court ruled that those targeted must be granted a “reasonable” chance to challenge their gang affiliation in court.
Further, the Supreme Court issued a rare midnight order halting another deportation flight, suspending removals under the act until the 5th Circuit resolves procedural questions, without addressing the constitutional merits of Trump’s application of the statute.
