The Venezuelan illegal immigrants suing President Donald Trump over his use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport them are asking the Supreme Court to reject his appeal of a lower court order blocking the deportations.
They also said that the administration misapplied the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act, which they said contained language (“invasion” and “predatory incursion”) that refers “only to military action in the context of an actual or imminent war” and “not criminal activity by a gang during peacetime.” Tren de Aragua, the gang in question, is not a “foreign government or nation,” the attorneys said.
Trump’s March 15 proclamation on the Alien Enemies Act and Tren de Aragua (TdA) stated that the gang operated in conjunction with a narco-terrorist group sponsored by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s regime.
“TdA is closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime, including its military and law enforcement apparatus,” it said.
Earlier this month, the lawsuit was brought by five plaintiffs who said they faced removal under Trump’s proclamation, including some who said they either weren’t part of Tren de Aragua or had been victimized by the group.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg entered two restraining orders preventing Trump’s ability to deport under the Alien Enemies Act. As the plaintiffs noted to the Supreme Court, Boasberg’s order did not apply to deportations pursued under other legal authorities.
The Trump administration and 26 states have alleged that Boasberg disregarded executive authority over foreign relations.
Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court that “this case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country—the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary, through [temporary restraining orders].”
Trump appealed Boasberg’s orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which declined this past week to grant that relief.
Appellate Judge Patricia Millett praised the district court’s handling of the case, saying, “There is neither jurisdiction nor reason for this court to interfere at this very preliminary stage or to allow the government to singlehandedly moot the Plaintiffs’ claims by immediately removing them beyond the reach of their lawyers or the court.”
She suggested the administration had “easily thrown aside” the Constitution’s demand for due process.
Much of the legal dispute revolves around whether and how the deportees should receive some kind of notice or hearing as part of their removals.
Appellate Judge Justin Walker issued a dissent in which he agreed with the administration that the proper legal avenue for the plaintiffs to challenge the government’s actions was through a petition for habeas corpus over the legality of their detention.
The plaintiffs had brought their claims in the wrong court as they are “not confined in the District of Columbia,” he said.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys told the district court that their clients could seek relief outside of habeas petitions. Habeas, they said, was for detention challenges, which their clients weren’t making.
“Rather, they challenge their removal without ordinary immigration processes, which is properly outside of habeas,” a filing in the lower court read.
The attorneys also warned about the impacts of rescinding Boasberg’s block on Trump’s order. That block, they said, “is ... essential to ensure that more individuals who have no affiliation with the gang will not be sent to a notorious foreign prison.”
