Trump-appointed judge blocks Alien Enemies Act deportations in Los Angeles area
Why did the Supreme Court block Trump from using Alien Enemies Act for deportations?
A judge in California on Monday blocked the Trump administration from using the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants in the Los Angeles area, ruling that the government hasn't promised adequate due process.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge John Holcomb — who was nominated by President Trump in 2019 — is the latest to limit the administration's controversial practice of rapidly deporting people accused of being members of the gang Tren de Aragua under the 1798 law, which allows removals of during an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" of the United States. Courts in three other states have also blocked Alien Enemies Act removals, though under different arguments.
Holcomb's preliminary injunction applies to most migrants who are in custody in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, Orange County and several bordering areas. The judge previously issued a temporary restraining order last month.
The case reached Holcomb's desk after a Venezuelan man named Darwin Antonio Arevalo Millan petitioned for his release last month. Arevalo says he applied for asylum but was arrested at a scheduled Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in and told he was detained in part due to his tattoos. The government told the court that he wasn't detained under the Alien Enemies Act, but Holcomb concluded that Arevalo still "faces an imminent threat of removal" under Mr. Trump's order invoking the law.
Holcomb ruled that Arevalo is likely to succeed in showing the government hasn't provided adequate notice for him to challenge his deportation. The judge said that in a hearing the government "refused to tell the Court how much notice it actually intends to provide."
"Arevalo seeks to avoid being deported as an alien enemy without being afforded the opportunity to challenge that designation—not to avoid deportation altogether," Holcomb wrote.
However, unlike some other federal judges, Holcomb said Arevalo was unlikely to show the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act illegally. He wrote that it's up to the president, not the court system, to decide whether an invasion or predatory incursion has occurred under the law.
CBS News has reached out to the White House for comment.
Monday's ruling adds to a complicated legal landscape for the Alien Enemies Act since March, when Mr. Trump first invoked the law against people accused of belonging to Tren de Aragua.
Critics say the government has used the law to remove people without adequate due process. Hundreds of Venezuelan deportees have been sent to a Salvadoran supermax prison under the law — some of whom have no known criminal record. The Trump administration maintains that the deportations are lawful and necessary to crack down on gang violence.
Courts in at least five states have weighed in on the law, reaching different conclusions. Judges in New York, Colorado and Texas have suggested Mr. Trump is using the Alien Enemies Act improperly because Tren de Aragua's actions don't constitute a foreign invasion or incursion. But a judge in Pennsylvania found that the president is allowed to use the law for alleged gang members, though she said the government hasn't provided deportees with enough notice.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act is legal, but it has said the government needs to give people a chance to challenge their deportation under the law. Last month, the high court blocked Alien Enemies Act removals in part of Texas on the argument that a group of migrants weren't given enough notice, but the justices did not specify how much notice deportees are owed.
Last month, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the Supreme Court will probably need to be the final word on the Alien Enemies Act — and argued the court should rule soon.
"The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court," Kavanaugh wrote
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Right. There Is a Judicial Coup—But It's a Counter-Coup
President Donald Trump and his minions continue to rage and blow as they lose one court case after another. In a case of Trumpian projection, the White House declared the recent decision at the U.S. Court of International Trade striking down most of his tariffs a "judicial coup." It was classic Trump. He always accuses his adversaries of committing whatever wrong he is trying to get away with—"lying," Hillary Clinton—"crooked" Joe Biden. But actually, Trump keeps losing in court because he is trying to overthrow law and order, and the courts are trying to stop him. With a steady and deadly stream of executive orders, Trump is mounting a coup against the checks and balances that have sustained democracy in America for over 200 years. The courts are the counter-coup—seeking to restore the established constitutional order. President Donald Trump answers reporters' questions after he posthumously awarded the new Medals of Sacrifice to fallen officers during a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on May 19, 2025, in Washington,... President Donald Trump answers reporters' questions after he posthumously awarded the new Medals of Sacrifice to fallen officers during a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on May 19, 2025, in Washington, D.C. MoreIn the case of the tariffs, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to impose tariffs on goods entering the country. Yes, Congress passed a law allowing the president to impose tariffs targeted at emergencies, but Trump capriciously slapped them on the whole world without rhyme or reason. The tariff tsunami, like other Trump power grabs, was justified by a claim of an "emergency," but, wisely, the court would have none of it. The sham trade "emergency" wasn't as flashy as the "invasion" emergency Trump declared regarding the Tren de Aragua drug gang. But it was just as bogus. Courts correctly discerned that the United States wasn't being invaded. More importantly, they recognized that even enemy aliens in time of war have the right to challenge their arrests in court. Trump halting hearings and threatening habeas corpus is revolutionary stuff. It's the beginning of a road reminiscent of France's Reign of Terror where its glorious Declaration of the Rights of Man was pushed aside by men who confused their own impulses with righteousness. Trump can complain all he wants, but he is the insurgent, not the judges. The principal feature of the Trump coup is his attempt to use executive orders to seize Congress' law-making function. Trump and his people simply ignore that presidents don't announce laws, they carry them out as written by Congress. That's why presidents swear to "faithfully execute" the laws. In the case of the tariffs, the law limits Trump's power. It is no coup for courts to say Trump must obey these limits. In the case of his cuts to federal spending on everything from foreign aid to FEMA, the governing law is the budget passed by Congress. It says what the president must spend on, and the president doesn't have the option to rewrite the law so he can spend—or not spend—as he likes. Yet Trump has undone innumerable congressional spending decisions. Consider also Trump's attacks on major law firms and universities. His executive orders punishing people because he doesn't like who or what they stand for don't just seek to cancel acts of Congress, they seek to cancel the constitutional First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association. Was it judicial insurrection for the courts to say that Trump can't cancel the First Amendment? And is it mutiny for the courts to say that Trump can't use his office to punish his personal enemies like former FBI director Robert Mueller? The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law requires official action to be aimed at legitimate government purposes—not personal ones. Likewise, is it a revolt for the courts to insist on the "due process" of law guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? This promise means that before the government deports people or bans lawyers from federal buildings, it must give them a chance to defend themselves. No. The courts aren't in revolt. What's revolting is the hubris that has inspired Trump to ignore the law as declared by Congress and the courts and associate law instead with his own personal will. The courts have no physical force to deploy against Trump's coup. To sustain the judicial counter-coup, the courts have only the moral force of memory that our nation became mighty, that it became the envy of the world, because it was founded on a government of laws, not men. Let's hope it's enough. Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the new book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Diddy trial updates: Sean Combs' alleged efforts to conceal abuse uncovered in testimony
Diddy trial updates: Sean Combs' alleged efforts to conceal abuse uncovered in testimony Show Caption Hide Caption Security guard says Sean Combs offered cash for hotel video Eddy Garcia testified Sean Combs paid $100K for hotel footage showing him kick, hit and drag Cassie Ventura Fine, according to court testimony. This story contains graphic descriptions that some readers may find disturbing. Prosecutors in Sean "Diddy" Combs' criminal trial are attempting to show the extreme lengths the hip-hop mogul went to conceal his alleged pattern of abuse. The Grammy-winning rapper's sweeping federal sex-crimes case resumed in Manhattan court on June 4 after the jury heard from Eddy Garcia, a former security officer at a Los Angeles-area hotel where Combs and former girlfriend Casandra "Cassie" Ventura Fine were captured on tape during a 2016 altercation. Garcia told the court on June 3 that Combs paid $100,000 for a copy of the video, which showed him kicking, hitting and dragging Cassie in the hallway of the InterContinental Hotel. The attack was first described in Ventura Fine's bombshell 2023 lawsuit, which accused Combs of sexual assault, trafficking and more. CNN last year published the security footage from the hotel. Diddy on trial newsletter: Step inside the courtroom as music mogul faces sex-crimes charges. Aside from Garcia, several new names are expected to testify in the trial, including radio personality Enrique Santos. Combs, 55, was arrested in September 2024 and charged with sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has pleaded not guilty. Combs is facing federal sex-crimes and trafficking charges in a sprawling lawsuit that has eroded his status as a power player and kingmaker in the entertainment industry. He was arrested in September 2024 and later charged with racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. The rapper has pleaded not guilty to all five counts against him. Racketeering is the participation in an illegal scheme under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute, or RICO, as a way for the U.S. government to prosecute organizations that contribute to criminal activity. Using RICO law, which is typically aimed at targeting multi-person criminal organizations, prosecutors allege that Combs coerced victims, some of whom they say were sex workers, through intimidation and narcotics to participate in "freak offs" — sometimes dayslong sex performances that federal prosecutors allege they have video of. The trial will not be televised, as cameras are typically not allowed in federal criminal trial proceedings. USA TODAY will be reporting live from the courtroom. Sign up for our newsletter for more updates. Contributing: USA TODAY staff If you are a survivor of sexual assault, RAINN offers support through the National Sexual Assault Hotline at (4673) and and en Español If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 or text "START" to 88788.
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
How Income Can Affect Your Health And Population Health
Los Angeles, CA - September 21: Hundreds of needy people line up around the block to receive food ... More from embattled 14th District Los Angeles City Council member Kevin de León, during a free food distribution. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images) Low-income individuals that received regular monthly cash stipends visited the emergency department less, had fewer hospital admissions and participated in more outpatient subspecialty care according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors of the study looked at nearly 2900 low-income individuals who applied for a lottery in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Of those individuals, about 1750 of them received $400 per month for a nine month period. The individuals that received money had 27% fewer emergency room visits compared to those that did not receive the monthly payments. The aforementioned study underscores the powerful role socioeconomic status plays in shaping health outcomes across populations. So how exactly can income affect health? Below are some of the most important ways money can influence health and its related outcomes. Higher income generally translates to better quality healthcare services. Individuals with more money are more likely to have health insurance, which allows them to afford hospital visits, prescription drugs and preventive interventions. Conversely, those with lower incomes may be hesitant to receive healthcare they need because it is too expensive, leading to untreated illnesses that could be managed or even cured with early intervention. In 2022, nearly 26 million nonelderly Americans were uninsured according to Kaiser Family Foundation. Nearly 2 in 3 (64%) of nonelderly Americans who were uninsured said they were because the cost of healthcare insurance was too high. As an example, consider a low-dose CT scan of the chest that is done to screen for lung cancer. The out-of-pocket cost for the study is typically around $300, and insurance coverage for it is variable. Nearly half (44%) of lung cancers are caught at a late stage, with survival rates falling to just 7% according to the American Lung Association. With lung cancer being the deadliest cancer of all cancers, those with less income are less likely to be screened and less likely to find lung cancer at a stage where it is treatable and curable. Living environments are another critical determinant of health outcomes influenced by income. Wealthier individuals can afford housing in neighborhoods with lower crime rates, better schools and facilities such as gyms and parks that contribute to superior physical and mental health. Low-income individuals, on the other hand, may live in poor neighborhoods and may be exposed to environmental hazards like mold and air pollution. Consider asthma, an obstructive lung disease that causes coughing, wheezing and chest tightness. Many allergens can trigger asthma, which include but are not limited to dust, mold and air pollution. Thus, those that live in poorer neighborhoods and are constantly exposed to these environmental hazards are more likely to develop asthma, which can be life-threatening if not treated appropriately. One's income can also have a profound effect on determining the quality and quantity of food one can afford. Higher-income households have the luxury of greater access to more nutritious food, while lower-income families may have to purchase cheaper, less healthy and processed foods out of necessity. Healthier foods cost nearly twice as much as unhealthier foods on average per serving, according to research from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Cheaper processed foods are usually higher in sugars, fats and salts. These types of foods contribute to poor nutrition and chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and obesity. Financial stability can also contribute to mental well-being. For example, those that live in poverty have to worry about their next meal and whether or not they will have food to eat. These worries can lead to a high level of anxiety and even depression, which can detrimentally affect mental health. It is of no surprise that those with the lowest incomes in a community suffer 1.5 to 3 times more frequently from anxiety, depression and other mental health illnesses compared to those with the highest incomes. What can be done to alleviate the obvious and profound health disparities caused by income inequality? The obvious answer is expanding access to healthcare insurance for all populations. Currently, 44 million Americans are enrolled in healthcare coverage through the Affordable Care Act according to KFF News. In addition, there must be a concerted effort by lawmakers and community activists to invest in safe and affordable housing, improve the availability of nutritious foods in low-income neighborhoods and expand important healthcare services such as preventive screening studies in an effort to decrease cancer in impoverished areas throughout the U.S. Income and health are inextricably related, and so much work needs to be done in America to address health inequities caused by income inequality.
