Photo credit: www.cbsnews.com
Washington — On Monday, the Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration to temporarily resume deportations of migrants claimed to be associated with a Venezuelan gang, utilizing a rarely applied wartime power.
The decision, which passed with a narrow 5-4 vote, addressed an urgent request from the Justice Department concerning President Trump’s implementation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This act allows for the expedited removal of individuals purportedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang without prior hearings. Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented alongside three liberal justices, expressing concerns about the ruling.
In an unsigned opinion, the Court deemed that the detainees contesting their deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are currently held in Texas, making the District of Columbia an “improper” venue for their case.
The Supreme Court’s ruling suggested a strong likelihood that the government would prevail in this matter, leading to the lifting of two temporary restraining orders issued by a federal judge in Washington that had halted removals under the Alien Enemies Act.
Furthermore, the Court indicated that any detainees facing removal under the law after the issuance of the order must be notified sufficiently in advance to allow them to pursue legal remedies in a proper jurisdiction before their deportation.
The federal district court had previously issued an order in the past month blocking the enforcement of deportations related to the 220-year-old law as legal proceedings continued. Following this blockade, the administration sought intervention from the Supreme Court.
This recent ruling arrives amidst escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, as the president’s second-term initiatives clash with ongoing judicial challenges. Over 100 lawsuits contesting aspects of his policies have emerged nationwide, with six key disputes already reaching the Supreme Court, which holds a conservative majority of 6-3.
The contentious issue regarding the summary deportations of Venezuelan migrants has garnered significant public attention, leading to calls from President Trump and his allies for impeachment of the district judge who initially blocked the removals.
Last month, Trump issued a proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act, alleging that the Tren de Aragua gang is “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion” against the U.S. He declared that all members of this group unlawfully present in the country should be detained and deported immediately. Historically, the Act has only been applied three times, all during declared wars.
In the aftermath of the proclamation, five Venezuelan nationals in a Texas detention center filed a lawsuit contending that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful and sought an injunction to prevent their deportations in a federal district court in Washington, D.C.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg initially granted a 14-day stay on their deportation and later expanded this order to include a broader prohibition on all removals under the president’s directive. However, the judge permitted deportations under other legal frameworks. A hearing regarding a longer-term preliminary injunction is scheduled for April 8.
Judge Boasberg is also examining the circumstances surrounding the removal of 137 individuals under the Alien Enemies Act, some of whom were on flights to El Salvador during the legal proceedings. These deportations raised concerns about whether the administration violated a prior oral order from the judge requiring flights carrying migrants subject to removal to return to the U.S.
The Trump administration filed an appeal against Boasberg’s temporary order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the government’s request to resume deportations in a 2-1 decision last week.
In an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris emphasized that the Alien Enemies Act provides the president with broad national security powers. She argued that the district court’s ruling was forcing the U.S. to harbor individuals identified as members of a foreign terrorist organization and jeopardizing sensitive diplomatic efforts aimed at eliminating the gang’s presence in the country.
The administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene against the temporary orders set by federal judges, arguing that such restraining orders undermine the president’s ability to protect national security and disrupt delicate foreign negotiations.
Conversely, attorneys representing the Venezuelan migrants accused President Trump of misusing the Alien Enemies Act, warning it could allow the government to unjustly detain anyone it claims is affiliated with a criminal organization for deportation.
Their legal filing stated, “The president’s attempt to categorize a criminal gang as an invading force under the AEA contradicts the limited wartime powers that Congress has entrusted to him.” They further contended that several individuals deported to El Salvador were not affiliated with the gang, including at least eight women.
The legal representatives argued that allowing the deportations to continue would severely harm their clients. At present, 130 Venezuelan men have already been sent to a Salvadoran facility, known for its brutal conditions and human rights violations.
The lawyers warned that without the temporary restraining order, their clients face extraordinary risks, potentially being consigned to a foreign prison without an opportunity to contest their classification as gang members, possibly for the rest of their lives.
Source
www.cbsnews.com