logo
Judges consider whether Trump can use wartime act against Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua

Judges consider whether Trump can use wartime act against Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua

Immigration and administration lawyers on Monday battled over whether President Donald Trump can use an 18th century wartime act against a Venezuelan gang in a case that is likely to ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The attorneys sparred before a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, the latest step in a tangled legal battle over Trump's March invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the Tren de Aragua gang.
The law has only previously been used during World Wars I and II and the War of 1812. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt told the three-judge panel that Trump's use of it is inappropriate. 'This has only been invoked three times in major, major wars, and now it's being invoked in connection with a gang,' Gelernt said.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign, arguing for the administration, said that courts cannot second-guess a president's determination that the U.S. faces a threat from abroad and requires extraordinary measures to protect itself. He noted that the only time the high court weighed in on the act was in a case that dates from after fighting in Europe ended in World War II, when the court said it could not second-guess then-President Harry Truman's assertion that suspected Nazis should still be held under the act because the war was still continuing.
'The president is due the utmost deference' in matters of foreign affairs and security, Ensign said.
Trump's invocation has already been twice before the nation's highest court on more technical issues. First, the court found that those accused of being TdA members deserved a 'reasonable' amount of time to challenge that designation in court, but that their deportations could only be challenged in the locations they were held. That eliminated a national bar against deportations under the act issued by a federal judge in Washington, who later found the administration possibly committed contempt when it disregarded his orders and continued to fly some held under the AEA to a prison in El Salvador.
Then, after the ACLU and its allies began filing suits all around the country and winning rulings barring deportations under the measure, the high court stepped in a second time. In April it issued an unusual post-midnight ruling stopping the administration from deporting people from a slice of north Texas where there was yet no active ruling against removal.
As multiple lower court judges found the AEA couldn't be used against a gang, the high court directed the 5th Circuit to consider the issue and how much time those held should have to challenge their designation.
The government, which initially provided minimal notice, now says the standard should be seven days to file an appeal. The ACLU argued for 30 days, the amount of time given to suspected Nazis held during World War II.
The panel that heard Monday's arguments was comprised of one judge appointed by Trump, one by former President George W. Bush and one by Biden. Whatever it rules can be appealed to either the entire 5th circuit — one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country — or directly to the high court.
Trump has argued that TdA is acting at the behest of Venezuela's government. The Act allows its use to combat either an 'invasion' or a 'predatory incursion.'
But the ACLU argues that the connection between the gang and the Venezuelan government is tangential at best, and that an assessment by 17 different intelligence agencies found little coordination between TdA and the government in Caracas. Gelernt contended that, by the standards laid out by the administration, the AEA could have been used against the mafia or any other criminal organization with tangential ties to other countries that has operated in the United States over the past 200 years.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Failed New Mexico candidate gets 80 years for convictions in shootings at officials' homes
Failed New Mexico candidate gets 80 years for convictions in shootings at officials' homes

CNN

time20 minutes ago

  • CNN

Failed New Mexico candidate gets 80 years for convictions in shootings at officials' homes

A failed political candidate was sentenced to 80 years in federal prison Wednesday for his convictions in a series of drive-by shootings at the homes of state and local lawmakers in Albuquerque in the aftermath of the 2020 election. A jury convicted former Republican candidate Solomon Peña earlier this year of conspiracy, weapons and other charges in the shootings in December 2022 and January 2023 on the homes of four Democratic officials, including the current state House speaker. Prosecutors, who had sought a 90-year sentence, said Peña has shown no remorse and had hoped to cause political change by terrorizing people who held contrary views to him into being too afraid to take part in political life. Peña's lawyers had sought a five-year sentence, saying their client maintains that he is innocent of the charges. They have said Peña was not involved in the shootings and that prosecutors were relying on the testimony of two men who bear responsibility and accepted plea agreements in exchange for leniency. 'Today was a necessary step toward Mr. Peña's continued fight to prove his innocence,' said Nicholas Hart, one of Peña's attorneys. 'He looks forward to the opportunity to appeal, where serious issues about the propriety of this prosecution will be addressed.' The attacks took place as threats and acts of intimidation against election workers and public officials surged across the country after President Donald Trump and his allies called into question the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Prosecutors said Peña resorted to violence in the belief that a 'rigged' election had robbed him of victory in his bid to serve in the state Legislature. The shootings targeted the homes of officials including two county commissioners after their certification of the 2022 election, in which Peña lost by nearly 50 percentage points. No one was injured, but in one case bullets passed through the bedroom of a state senator's 10-year-old daughter. Two other men who had acknowledged helping Peña with the attacks had previously pleaded guilty to federal charges and received yearslong prison sentences.

Chinese Imports Fell During Trump's First Term. It's Happening Again.
Chinese Imports Fell During Trump's First Term. It's Happening Again.

Wall Street Journal

time20 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Chinese Imports Fell During Trump's First Term. It's Happening Again.

President Trump recently delayed for 90 days raising tariffs on China to give the two sides more time to negotiate a trade deal. Where the sides ultimately end up is an open question: The president hasn't said how much more he will impose on China beyond the 30% currently in place if a deal isn't reached. But this much is clear: The U.S.'s reliance on Chinese goods has fallen off since Trump first put tariffs on China in 2018.

Law Firms That Settled With Trump Are Pressed to Help on Trade Deals
Law Firms That Settled With Trump Are Pressed to Help on Trade Deals

New York Times

time20 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Law Firms That Settled With Trump Are Pressed to Help on Trade Deals

Two of the law firms that reached deals with President Trump this year to avoid punitive executive orders were connected in recent months with the Commerce Department about working on trade deals, according to three people briefed on the matter. The firms, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps, were connected to the department by Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, two of the people said. Mr. Epshteyn, who does not hold a government position, played a direct role in brokering the initial deals between Mr. Trump and the law firms, in which the firms agreed to do pro bono work on causes the president has championed, like helping veterans, military families and first responders. His previously undisclosed efforts connecting the firms with the Commerce Department shows how he is seeking to impose Mr. Trump's expansive view of the deals, including recruiting firms to work for the government in advancing the administration's agenda. After Mr. Epshteyn helped connect the firms with the government in recent months, Kirkland and Ellis went on to work on the trade deals the administration struck with Japan and South Korea, which were announced in July, according to three of the people. It is unclear if Skadden Arps has done work for the administration. Earlier this year, after the law firms struck deals with Mr. Trump, the president said that he had a broader understanding of the terms than the firms had let on, saying the pro bono work included helping the administration on trade deals and could even be applied to representing him in a personal capacity. It's unclear whether Kirkland & Ellis did the work for free or charged the Commerce Department. But the revelation of the firm's work marks the first time that it has been publicly revealed that one of the firms that cut a deal with Mr. Trump is now doing work for the administration. Representatives of Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps did not immediately respond to requests for comment. When asked for comment, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, did not directly address the latest developments. Instead, he said, Mr. Trump 'has radically changed the business of discrimination, including by ending D.E.I. in Big Law.' He added: 'Law firms that have for years propelled one-sided justice by providing pro bono resources to those causes that make our nation more dangerous and less free have started serving their nation.' Benno Kass, the director of public affairs for the Commerce Department, said the agency and the secretary, Howard Lutnick, 'are working with some of America's top law firms and legal minds to cement the truly historic trade deals that President Trump negotiated for the American people.' He did not specify which firms or what work they were doing. Mr. Epshteyn would not provide comment. Nine firms reached deals with Mr. Trump to head off executive orders. In total, the firms pledged nearly a billion dollars in pro bono legal work. At least some of the other firms are said to have been connected with the administration to do work for the government, but it's unclear which firms or what issues they were discussing working on. None of the firms have acknowledged any wrongdoing. They were targeted with punitive executive orders or implicit threats for representing or aiding Mr. Trump's political foes or employing people he sees as having used the legal system to come after him. The deals have been criticized by many in the legal community as unconstitutional and undemocratic, and have led to splits inside some of the firms about the wisdom of agreeing to terms with the White House.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store