Appeals Court Divided on Trump’s Venezuelan Deportation Order \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal appeals court panel appeared split on whether to lift a block on the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. Judges questioned both the law’s application and judicial oversight. The administration invoked the centuries-old law, sparking legal and political tensions.
Trump’s Venezuelan Deportation Case Quick Looks:
- Appeals court judges debated Trump’s use of 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
- Deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador sparked legal controversy.
- Judge Patricia Millett compared deportations to WWII-era Nazi detentions.
- DOJ lawyer rejected the Nazi analogy during oral arguments.
- Administration transferred hundreds of Venezuelans despite a federal block.
- Chief Judge James Boasberg ordered deported migrants to return.
- Trump administration appealed Boasberg’s ruling, calling it executive interference.
- Judges questioned jurisdiction, suggesting lawsuits belong in Texas courts.
- Judge Justin Walker appeared receptive to the administration’s arguments.
- Plaintiffs’ lawyer argued the government bypassed proper immigration processes.
- The deportations took place secretly and rapidly, activists say.
- Trump called for Boasberg’s disbarment after the ruling.
- Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts rebuked impeachment calls.
- The Alien Enemies Act was last used during WWII.
- Plaintiffs argue migrants deserve a chance to contest deportation.
Deep Look
The Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador has ignited a heated legal battle that could reshape the boundaries of presidential power in matters of immigration and national security. On Monday, a panel of three federal appeals court judges appeared sharply divided on whether to lift a lower court’s order temporarily halting these deportations. The case, heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has become a flashpoint in an escalating confrontation between the executive branch and the federal judiciary.
The controversial deportations mark the first time since World War II that the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked. The Trump administration has argued that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua constitutes an invading force and, therefore, noncitizens from Venezuela are subject to expedited deportation without standard immigration proceedings. Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign defended the administration’s stance, claiming that Chief Judge James Boasberg’s decision to block the deportations represented “an unprecedented and enormous intrusion upon the powers of the executive branch.”
Judge Patricia Millett, appointed by President Obama in 2013, expressed deep skepticism during the hearing. She drew a striking comparison to Nazi detainees in the United States during World War II, who, she argued, were given more robust legal protections than the Venezuelan migrants being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. Ensign pushed back against the analogy, but Millett’s comment highlighted concerns about the erosion of legal safeguards for noncitizens facing removal without due process.
The administration’s deportations continued in defiance of Boasberg’s March 15 order, which had temporarily blocked the government from using the Alien Enemies Act to carry out mass expulsions. Boasberg also ordered planeloads of Venezuelan migrants to be returned to the United States — an order that was not followed. The Justice Department later claimed that only Boasberg’s written order was binding and that it could not apply to planes that had already departed.
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, appeared more receptive to the administration’s argument. He repeatedly questioned whether the plaintiffs had filed their lawsuit in the proper jurisdiction. According to Walker, the case should have been brought in Texas, where the migrants were being detained, not in Washington, D.C. He challenged American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who represented the plaintiffs, suggesting that the legal challenge could have been made in Texas federal court with the same arguments.
Gelernt countered that the secretive and rapid nature of the deportations made it impossible to mount individual legal challenges before planes took off. He accused the administration of using the Alien Enemies Act as a tool to bypass standard immigration law and to “short-circuit” the legal process. “This has all been done in secret,” Gelernt emphasized, underscoring the urgency and lack of transparency that surrounded the government’s actions.
The third judge on the panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, remained silent throughout the two-hour hearing, offering no indication of her stance. The panel did not issue a ruling from the bench, and the case remains pending.
Chief Judge Boasberg’s initial ruling highlighted the need for due process. He argued that there is “a strong public interest in preventing the mistaken deportation of people based on categories they have no right to challenge.” His ruling emphasized that the government must comply with the law, even under the guise of national security concerns.
Trump and his allies have responded to the court’s interference with outrage. Trump has called for Boasberg’s impeachment and, in a social media post early Monday morning, questioned the judge’s impartiality. He even suggested that Boasberg should be disbarred, citing reports of the judge’s attendance at a legal conference that allegedly included “anti-Trump speakers.”
The push to remove Boasberg has been met with rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court, who issued a statement defending judicial independence. Roberts wrote that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
The Alien Enemies Act itself has a complex history. Enacted in 1798 during tensions with France, it was later used to detain and deport German, Italian, and Japanese nationals during World War II. However, its use in modern times has been nonexistent until the Trump administration revived it as a tool for expedited mass deportations.
The case has sparked alarm among legal scholars and immigrant rights advocates, who argue that using the Alien Enemies Act to bypass immigration courts sets a dangerous precedent. The law allows for deportation without giving noncitizens the opportunity to challenge their designation as “enemies” or to appear before a judge. This raises fundamental questions about due process, executive overreach, and the role of the courts in checking presidential authority.
At Friday’s pre-hearing session, Boasberg vowed to investigate whether the administration had violated his oral order to halt deportations and return deported migrants. The administration’s defiance of the order has only deepened the conflict between the judiciary and the executive branch.
As the appeals court deliberates, the stakes extend far beyond the fate of Venezuelan migrants deported to El Salvador. The ruling could redefine executive power in immigration enforcement and clarify whether the Alien Enemies Act can be used as a blanket tool for mass deportations without judicial oversight. It will also test the strength of the federal courts in standing up to perceived abuses of executive authority.
This case is now a critical turning point for both legal precedent and the political climate surrounding immigration policy in the United States. Whether the judges ultimately side with the executive branch or uphold judicial checks on presidential power will have lasting implications for U.S. immigration law, national security policy, and the future role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional protections for noncitizens.
Appeals Court Divided Appeals Court Divided
You must Register or Login to post a comment.