Justice Department Memo Claims Alien Enemies Act Allows Warrantless Home Searches and No Judicial Review
Newly uncovered guidance from the Justice Department claims the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) allows federal law enforcement officers to enter the houses of suspected gang members without a warrant and remove them from the country without any judicial review.
In a March 14 memorandum, obtained by the open government group Property of the People through a public records request and first reported by USA Today, Attorney General Pam Bondi instructs federal law enforcement officers on how to carry out arrests on members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TDA), which President Donald Trump has declared are "alien enemies" under the AEA.
The Trump administration has refused to disclose many of the operational details of its unprecedented invocation of the 1798 wartime law to send alleged TDA members to a prison in El Salvador under an agreement with that country's president, Nayib Bukele. The memo is one of the first public glimpses at the Trump administration's claims that it can identify, pursue, arrest, and deport migrants, unconstrained by the Fourth Amendment or due process.
While the memo encourages officers to cooperate with federal prosecutors, it notes that "a judicial or administrative arrest warrant is not necessary to apprehend a validated Alien Enemy."
The memo also allows officers to arrest suspects they encounter in the field "upon a reasonable belief that the alien meets all four requirements to be validated as an Alien Enemy."
"This authority includes entering an Alien Enemy's residence to make an AEA apprehension where circumstances render it impracticable to first obtain a signed Notice and Warrant of Apprehension and Removal," the memo continues.
The memo includes a previously published "Alien Enemy Validation Guide" that uses a scorecard to determine suspected TDA members. That scorecard includes alleged symbolic ties to the gang, such as tattoos and clothing. However, as multiple media outlets have reported, Venezuelan migrants have been flagged as violent gang members for generic and inoffensive tattoos, like an autism awareness symbol.
Once a suspect is apprehended, Bondi claims they are "not entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, to an appeal of the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals, or to a judicial review of the removal in any court of the United States."
"The documents reveal the Trump administration has authorized every single law enforcement officer in the country, including traffic cops, to engage in immigrant roundups explicitly outside due process," Ryan Shapiro, executive director of Property of the People, said in a press release. "With Trump also pushing to deport U.S. citizens, we are lurching ever closer to authoritarian rule."
Since the memo was issued, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that AEA detainees are subject to due process and can challenge their imprisonment through habeas corpus petitions. Several lower federal courts have also rejected the Trump administration's claims of AEA deportations being beyond judicial review.
Last week, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote that the Trump administration's claims "should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear."
"The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order," Wilkinson warned. "Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done."
The Justice Department did not immediately return an inquiry asking if it has updated or rescinded its guidance in light of the Supreme Court and other federal court's rulings.
The post Justice Department Memo Claims Alien Enemies Act Allows Warrantless Home Searches and No Judicial Review appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
11 minutes ago
- UPI
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
President Donald Trump congratulates a cadet at the United States Military Academy graduation ceremony in Michie Stadium at West Point, New York, on May 24, and will review the Army's 250th birthday parade on June 14. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.
President Donald Trump's campaign against two of the planet's best-known universities is laying bare just how unprepared academia was to confront a hostile White House. Schools never imagined facing an administration so willing to exercise government power so quickly — targeting the research funding, tax-exempt status, foreign student enrollment and financial aid eligibility schools need to function. That's left them right where the president wants them. Even as Ivy League schools, research institutions, and college trade associations try to resist Trump's attacks in court, campus leaders are starting to accept they face only difficult choices: negotiate with the government, mount a painful legal and political fight — or simply try to stay out of sight. Groundbreaking scientific research, financial aid for lower-income students and soft power as an economic engine once shielded schools' access to federal funds. Trump has now transformed those financial lifelines into leverage. And the diversity and independence of U.S. colleges and universities — something they've seen as a source of strength and competition — is straining efforts to form a singular response to the president. 'Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on the part of universities,' said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. 'It feels now like there has been a naïveté on the part of universities. There's been no planning for this kind of thing.' Schools are accustomed to tension with their faculty, governing boards, legislatures and governors. But punishments for resisting the Trump administration plumbed untested levels of severity this week when the president issued an executive order to bar foreign students from entering the country to study at Harvard University as his administration threatened Columbia's academic accreditation. Even though Project 2025 — The Heritage Foundation's roadmap for a second Trump administration — previewed some of the tactics the administration would use, many school leaders may have underestimated the president's determination. 'It just seemed inconceivable that we would be in this position of having massive amounts of federal funding withheld, threats to have legislation that attacks your tax status, and now these new issues with international students,' Bollinger said. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday night that blocked Trump's directive to restrict Harvard's access to international students. But the administration is brandishing its response to Harvard's resistance as a warning to other schools who might resist, as federal officials pressure schools to negotiate the terms of a truce over the administration's complaints about campus antisemitism, foreign government influence and its opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 'We've held back funding from Columbia, we've also done the same thing with Harvard,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told House lawmakers this past week. 'We are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the table for negotiations,' she said, just hours before telling the school's accreditor it was violating federal anti-discrimination laws. 'We've also asked Harvard. Their answer was a lawsuit.' A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 'What we've seen so far when it comes to Harvard is the playbook for holding these radical schools accountable is way deeper than anyone anticipated or expected,' a senior White House official told POLITICO. 'You're starting to get to the bone, so to speak, of holding these people accountable,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss White House strategy. 'Harvard knows they cannot endure this for long, they just can't. They're going to have to come to the table, and we'll always be there to meet them. But this was a test case of what to do.' The university described Trump's latest foreign student order this week as 'yet another illegal retaliatory step.' A federal judge in May blocked a separate administration attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard is still locked in a legal fight over more than $2 billion in federal grants the White House blocked after the school refused to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions and disciplinary policies. Trump announced plans to cancel Harvard's tax-exempt status in early May, then later floated redistributing billions of dollars in university grants to trade schools. 'It is not our desire to bring these schools to their knees. The president reveres our higher educational facilities. He's a product of one,' the White House official said. 'But in order to hold these people accountable, we will be unrelenting in our enforcement of the law and hitting them where it hurts, which is their pocketbook.' Many institutions have chosen a more muted response following months of conflict, including major public institutions in states that have also grown reliant on the full-freight tuition paid by international students. 'Universities don't have as many degrees of freedom, at least in the public sector, as you might think they do,' said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia. 'One reason they seem to be relatively slow to act is there's a certain disbelief — can this really be happening?' 'We seem to be in uncharted territory, at least in my experience,' Sullivan said. 'All of a sudden, the rules don't seem to apply. I think that's disconcerting. It shakes the ground beneath you, and you don't necessarily know what to do next.' Still, some higher education leaders are trying to confront the government. More than 650 campus officials have so far signed onto a joint statement that opposes 'the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Sullivan and a group of other former presidents used an op-ed in The Washington Post to argue the Trump administration's offensive 'won't be confined to Harvard University.' Trade associations including the American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have joined schools in a lawsuit to block some of Trump's research funding cuts. The Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a collective of school leaders, has also sued to challenge the Trump administration's attempts to target the legal status of thousands of foreign students. 'Your first obligation as president is you don't want to hurt the institution you represent,' Sullivan said of the relative silence coming from non-Ivy League institutions. 'These days it's hard to tell what hurts and what doesn't. I think that's the motive. The motive is not cowardice.' Schools still face a choice between negotiating with the government — and risk compromising on their principles — or inviting Trump's rage by putting up a fight. 'Every school has had an option to correct course and work with the administration, or stand firm in their violations of the law,' the administration official said. 'They have an option, they know very well what to do.' The real question, according to Bollinger, the former Columbia president, is how far the White House will go and how much resistance the schools are willing to put up. 'The power of government is so immense that if they want to destroy institutions, they can,' he said. 'What you do in that kind of environment is you stand on principle.'
New York Post
17 minutes ago
- New York Post
Ex-NY Young Republicans leader Gavin Wax gets nod for FCC spot
WASHINGTON — The former leader of New York's Young Republicans was endorsed Saturday by an outgoing member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fill his vacancy. FCC commissioner Nathan Simington told The Post in a phone interview Saturday that Gavin Wax, 31, 'would be a great' replacement and had been hearing 'buzz' about a potential nomination from President Trump. 'I don't want to get ahead of the president,' said Simington, who has served at the FCC since the Senate confirmed him as Trump's pick in December 2020, before adding: 'Trump has been very smart and creative with his picks in general. And he seems willing to look outside of, I guess, the establishment … or Beltway insiders.' 4 FCC commissioner Nathan Simington told The Post in a phone interview Saturday that Gavin Wax, 31, 'would be a great' replacement and had been hearing 'buzz' about a potential nomination from President Trump. AP Simington, who previously served as an associate at law firms like Mayer Brown as well as in a senior advisory role at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, is departing the FCC after his term expired last year and he stayed on in the intervening months as a holdover. Wax is currently serving under the Republican appointee as chief of staff and senior adviser at the FCC. If confirmed, he would be the youngest-ever FCC commissioner since 1945, when Democrat Charles Denny was confirmed at age 32. 'I came in as someone whose experience was primarily on the international trading side of wireless finance, and so I've been reading a lot of telecom reg[ulations],' he explained. 'Gavin and I have collaborated on a lot of writing, and I think the common thread of tying it together is a desire to take a fresh look at telecom.' 4 Simington is departing the FCC after his term expired last year and he stayed on in the intervening months as a holdover. AP 'Gavin has spent a lot of effort with me thinking through questions of 5G industrialization. … I would expect [him] to focus on what it means to get smart manufacturing up and running at high scale in the United States,' he added. The two co-authored an op-ed in the conservative Daily Caller last month calling for 'DOGE-style' reforms at the FCC to do away with 'outdated practices that burden consumers, broadcasters, and taxpayers alike.' Established as part of the Communications Act of 1934, the five-member FCC regulates TV, radio, internet, satellite and cable industries, approves licensing and auctions off the use of spectrum for services like 5G. 4 'I don't want to get ahead of the president,' said Simington. 'And he seems willing to look outside of, I guess, the establishment … or Beltway insiders.' AFP via Getty Images As for his work chairing the Young Republicans, Simington noted: 'The commission is an organization of 1,600 people. … I have to say when I got Gavin's resume, the line items about the sizes of the events that he had organized and put on … my response was, this guy can clearly do things that I would find very challenging.' Wax hosted the group's annual holiday gala in previous years. Trump was the keynote speaker for the event in 2023. The FCC currently has two Republican commissioners including Simington and two Democratic commissioners. 4 Wax hosted the group's annual holiday gala in previous years. Trump was the keynote speaker for the event in 2023. Kevin C. Downs Democratic Commissioner Geoffrey Starks announced that he was stepping down Friday, leaving another vacancy. Olivia Trusty was previously nominated as the third Republican to serve on the panel of commissioners and is in the process of being confirmed by the Senate. Chairman Brendan Carr, a Republican, has led a series of reforms at the agency since Trump returned to the White House, including targeting diversity practices at Verizon and hinting at broader changes to so-called 'Section 230' protections for big tech companies. The latter has been the subject of furious debate by Republicans due to the liability shield it provides the platforms, even as some Facebook admitted to taking advantage of the tool to censor Americans' views online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Neither the White House nor Wax immediately responded to requests for comment.
