Trump wins rare court victory to use 1798 law in fast-tracking Venezuelan deportations
WASHINGTON, May 14 — A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled on Tuesday that the United States can use the Alien Enemies Act to fast-track the deportation of accused Venezuelan gang members, in what appears to be the first court ruling that backs the Trump administration's interpretation of the 1798 law.
Judge Stephanie Haines, of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, ruled that President Donald Trump has authority to declare the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organisation and deport its members under the Alien Enemies Act, but she criticised the administration's practice of deporting people sometimes 'within a matter of hours.'
Haines, appointed by Trump during his first term, ruled that the administration must give potential deportees at least 21 days' notice and the opportunity to challenge their removals, to avoid the possibility that people who are not gang members 'may be errantly removed from this country.'
She made the ruling in court papers in the case of a Venezuelan man identified as A.S.R. Haines did not rule whether A.S.R. was a member of the gang, but she said people like him must be given more opportunity to challenge their deportations.
Haines required the government to provide notice in Spanish and English, and to provide interpreters when necessary.
Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who is representing A.S.R., said he would appeal.
'We strongly disagree with the Court's decision to allow the government to continue using this wartime authority during peacetime, and will appeal that aspect of the decision,' Gelernt said.
Haines' ruling is contrary to other federal courts' decisions on the Trump administration's interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, which the president invoked in March as legal justification for deporting hundreds of men whom his administration accused of being Tren de Aragua members.
Federal judges in New York, Colorado and Texas have ruled against Trump's use of the law to deport Venezuelans.
Haines, in her ruling, noted that her district has jurisdiction over the petition filed by A.S.R., even though he was transferred from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, on 15 April to an ICE detention centre in Texas, despite a temporary restraining order issued that day barring his transfer from the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The Trump administration has deported alleged gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an arrangement in which the United States is paying the Central American nation US$6 million. It is part of Trump's hardline approach toward immigration.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Mexican president rebukes violence in LA protests
Protests spread on the streets of Los Angeles over the weekend. (AP pic) MEXICO CITY : Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said today that she did not agree with violent acts committed during the massive protests that have broken out in Los Angeles against immigration raids. The leader, speaking from her morning press conference, also called on US authorities to respect the rule of law in migration processes. 'It must be clear: We condemn violence wherever it comes from,' Sheinbaum said. Protests spread on the streets of Los Angeles over the weekend over president Donald Trump's immigration enforcement as groups of protesters, many carrying Mexican flags and signs denouncing US immigration authorities, gathered in spots around the city. At least 42 Mexicans are being held in four detention centres after recent immigration raids in Los Angeles and four were deported, Mexico's foreign minister Juan Ramon de la Fuente said during today's press conference. 'We will continue our visits to monitor the Mexicans in detention centres in Los Angeles,' de la Fuente said. He added that the vast majority of Mexicans detained were working when they were arrested.
Malay Mail
5 hours ago
- Malay Mail
US aviation industry warns tariffs on aircraft parts risk harming key supply chains
NEW YORK, June 9 — US airlines and aerospace manufacturers insist they have no use for tariff protections, warning that the proposed Trump administration levies could eat into the healthy trade surplus the sector has enjoyed for more than 70 years. At the request of President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's department launched an investigation on May 1 to determine whether to impose tariffs of between 10 and 20 percent on civil aircraft and parts, including engines. The US industry those tariffs were crafted to protect, swiftly let the administration know it was not interested. 'Imposing broad tariff or non-tariff trade barriers on the imports of civil aviation technology would risk reversing decades of industrial progress and harm the domestic supply chain,' the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) said in a letter addressed to Lutnick and obtained by AFP. The interested parties were given until June 3 to communicate their positions. The very next day, Lutnick announced that Washington aimed to 'set the standard for aircraft part tariffs' by the end of this month. 'The key is to protect that industry,' he said, adding: 'We will use these tariffs for the betterment of American industry.' But AIA and the Airlines for America (A4A) trade association voiced fear that far from helping, the tariffs would end up harming US manufacturers. No fix needed 'Unlike other industries, the civil aviation manufacturing industry prioritizes domestic production of high-value components and final assembly,' AIA pointed out. According to the organization, US aerospace and defense exports reached US$135.9 billion in 2023, including US$113.9 billion for civil aviation alone. This allowed the sector to generate a trade surplus of US$74.5 billion and to invest US$34.5 billion in research and development, it said. The sector employs more than 2.2 million people in the United States across more than 100,000 companies, which in 2023 produced goods worth nearly $545 billion. In its response to Lutnick, the A4A highlighted how beneficial the international Agreement on Trade in Commercial Aviation (ATCA) had been by helping to eliminate tariffs and trade barriers over nearly half a century. 'The US civil aviation industry is the success story that President Trump is looking for as it leads civil aerospace globally,' it insisted. A full 84 percent of production was already American, it said, stressing that Washington 'does not need to fix the 16 percent' remaining. 'The current trade framework has enhanced our economic and national security and is a critical component to maintaining our national security moving forward,' it said. For manufacturers, the potential tariffs would act like sand jamming a well-oiled machine that has been running smoothly for decades, experts warned. They would also throw off balance an ultra-sensitive supply chain still recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic. 'Competitive disadvantage' 'To avoid the situation getting worse, we advocate to keep aerospace outside of trade wars,' Willie Walsh, head of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), told the organization's general assembly last week. AIA meanwhile stressed that 'aircraft and parts are already in high demand and have a limited supply.' 'Integrating new suppliers and expanding capacity is complex, timely, and costly,' it warned, pointing out that finding suppliers capable of meeting rigorous safety certifications could 'take up to 10 years.' Delta Air Lines also argued for sticking with the status quo, cautioning that the proposed tariffs 'would hinder Delta's ability to maintain its current trajectory.' 'If component parts incur tariffs upon entering the United States, Delta will be at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors,' it said. 'The action would also impose an unexpected tax on Delta's purchases of aircraft contracted years in advance.' Delta chief Ed Bastian insisted in late April that the airline 'will not be paying tariffs on any aircraft deliveries we take,' adding that it was 'working very closely with (European group) Airbus' to minimize the impact. Delta pointed out in its letter to Lutnick that it currently had 100 aircraft on order from Boeing, and that it was demanding that its Airbus A220s be produced primarily in Mobile, Alabama. But if the tariffs are imposed, it warned, 'Delta would likely be forced to cancel existing contracts and reconsider contracts under negotiation.' — AFP
Malay Mail
5 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
LOS ANGELES, June 9 — President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the US government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind 'its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County' and return them to his command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the move? Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the US is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' What are National Guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What are the implications for freedom of speech? The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have US troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. A demonstrator holds a US flag across from California Highway Patrol officers. — Reuters pic Is Trump's move susceptible to legal challenges? Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says 'orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States,' but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. Could California sue to challenge Trump's move? California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. A demonstrator strikes a Waymo self-driving car with a skateboard as another burns in the background during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles June 8, 2025. — Reuters pic What other laws could trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other US military troops? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against US citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the US in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. — Reuters
