Trump judges pump brakes so far on Alien Enemies Act deportations to El Salvador
Johnstown, Pennsylvania CNN —
The centerpiece of Donald Trump's hardline attempts to deport undocumented immigrants using a wartime power has been met with resistance by federal courts, including among judges Trump himself has appointed.
The latest, on Monday, was district Judge Stephanie Haines, presiding over a federal court in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The administration argued to Haines that it should be able to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants from the US with little advance notice.
Haines had already temporarily blocked the Trump administration from sending suspected Tren de Aragua gang members from Venezuela to El Salvador if they were held in a facility in her district, in Central Pennsylvania, where there is a hub for immigration detainees for the northeastern US.
On Monday, she didn't rule on whether he prohibition should last longer, or say if she would allow the administration to use the wartime law for detainees being moved through Pennsylvania. Yet she asked the Justice Department several questions about why they thought it was sufficient for detainees to have a fewer-than-two-day window to challenge the Alien Enemies Act once they're told they may be sent to El Salvador.
In addition to Haines, another Trump-appointed trial-level judge, in South Texas, ruled last week that removals under the Alien Enemies Act weren't lawful.
Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., who joined the bench in Texas in 2018, decided the president alone couldn't deem the US was being threatened or invaded by Venezuelans and declare undocumented immigrants from the country alien enemies. The ruling was the first to block the administration's use of the law after weighing the case in full.
Though Rodriguez's decision only applies to migrants held in the judge's district in south Texas, it became a crucial early sign that a centerpiece of the administration's hardline immigration policy may be struck down across the country.
Each ruling, especially if they come from Trump-appointed judges, may chip away at the administration's arguments for using the controversial law.
'All these decisions are pointing in the same direction, which is that the Alien Enemies Act should only be used in time of war or invasion,' Christopher Slobogin, a criminal justice professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, told CNN this week. 'The fact that Trump appointees are saying that makes the point especially strongly.'
Two other federal judges this week — one nominated by former President Bill Clinton and another nominated by former President Joe Biden — are poised to make more thorough decisions for migrants who were detained in Colorado and the New York City area. Those judges, Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan and Charlotte Sweeney in Denver, have already temporarily stopped immigration authorities from removing detainees whom the administration wants to deem alien enemies. A third Democratic presidential appointee to the bench, Gloria Navarro in Nevada's US District Court, has already blocked the use of the Alien Enemies Act at this time.
And three judges on the federal appeals court overseeing Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico have also declined to side with the administration so far. In a brief decision in late April, the three judges, including a George W. Bush appointee and a Trump appointee, said the Trump administration hadn't shown how they'd be irreparably harmed currently by a lower court's decision keeping detainees in Colorado inside the US.
'Given the important unresolved issues under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court that no one in that proceeding be removed under the AEA until further order of that Court, there is no realistic possibility that the government could remove any member of the class from this country' before May 6, the judges, Harris Hartz, Gregory Phillips and Joel Carson of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote. The appeal is ongoing.
Judge Wesley Hendrix, another Trump appointee in northern Texas overseeing an Alien Enemies Act case, is continuing to scrutinize the use of the law regarding detainees apprehended in other parts of the country. But the administration has agreed it won't send the detainees held in the Bluebonnet Detention Center in that district to El Salvador, as it had planned heading into Easter weekend last month, at least while their court petitions are pending.
Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, which is representing immigration detainees in the Alien Enemies Act challenges, said after a court hearing before Trump-appointed Haines in Pennsylvania the presidential appointment of the judge shouldn't matter.
'Judges, no matter who nominated them, are very serious people' and take the immigration cases seriously, Gelernt said. 'We are not going to worry about that.'
All of the Alien Enemies Act cases are building toward a possible major test at the Supreme Court, in what may be one of the most significant fights so far on Trump's power, the protections of due process, the administration's execution of Trump's immigration agenda, and federal courts' willingness to push back so far in this presidential administration.
'If you have a sufficient number of lower court cases coming to the same conclusion, that's bound to create momentum at higher-level courts,' Slobogin said. But, 'It's always possible for the Supreme Court to say, 'All you guys are wrong.''
The Supreme Court — so far, however, with three Trump appointees and conservatives controlling the majority — in an unusual 7-2 emergency vote on April 19, has put the brakes on the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act at this time for those held in Bluebonnet.
Part of the reason why lower courts are still involved and handling these cases piecemeal across the country is because of the Supreme Court previously directing each detainee to bring their own challenge where they are held.
'These have to be brought one at a time until an upper level court decides it,' Slobogin said. 'The ACLU is going to file every suit they can file, to make sure this issue is litigated to the fullest and to publicize what's going on. I'm waiting with bated breath to see what happens.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
23 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Miami commissioners cautious with answers on whether they'll vote for ICE agreement
South Florida's largest city could deputize its police officers with immigration enforcement powers later this week, adding to a growing sense of uncertainty in the region as the Trump administration carries out its full-forced crackdown on immigration. On Thursday, the Miami City Commission is scheduled to vote to enter into what's known as a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The city would join the 'task force' model, which allows police officers to conduct immigration enforcement functions during routine work and to question, arrest and detain people suspected of violating immigration law. However, despite the fact that the agreement is on Thursday's meeting agenda, two city commissioners told the Miami Herald that the item might be deferred for the second time. The commission previously deferred the item in April in order to postpone the vote until after the June 3 special election to replace the late Commissioner Manolo Reyes. Commissioner Joe Carollo declined to say whether he plans to vote in favor of the agreement but said he has been monitoring the protests against ICE in Los Angeles, where Trump deployed the National Guard. Asked where he stands on the 287(g) agreement, Carollo said he's 'certainly looking carefully' at Los Angeles, which he said has 'frankly been a factor in the way that I'm gonna be going at this.' Commissioner Damian Pardo said in a statement that 'as a life long advocate for a legal path for US citizenship and a supporter of TPS, I am not in favor of 287(g).' 'Regardless of how well this plan may be implemented by local enforcement agencies, and in addition to the human rights considerations, I am very concerned with the hostile climate these policies create for immigrants,' Pardo said. He added that the city's economy is boosted by the 'inflow of business from Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe.' 'Our city has benefited enormously from our attraction as a destination to the international community,' Pardo added. 'I would argue that attraction is the 'Magic' in the Magic city. Let's keep it that way.' Both Carollo and Pardo said the item would likely be deferred. READ MORE: What the end of CHNV parole program means for a half-million migrants, many in Florida The City Commission was scheduled to take its vote on June 12, which will be the first commission meeting for newly elected District 4 Commissioner Ralph Rosado. According to voting map data, over 90% of voting-age citizens in District 4 are Hispanic, meaning Rosado's district has the largest concentration of Hispanics in the city's five voting districts. Speaking at his election night watch party last week, the freshman commissioner said he hadn't decided yet how he will vote on the 287(g) agreement. 'I've been discussing it with a number of people,' Rosado said, adding that he has 'a series of legal questions' that he wants to ask the city attorney before making a decision. Commissioner Christine King, who is also the commission chairwoman, declined to comment on the ICE agreement. Reached Monday, Commissioner Miguel Angel Gabela said he would get back to the Herald at a later time with a comment. Mayor Francis Suarez, who does not have a vote on the commission but who does have veto power, did not respond to a request asking whether he supports the city entering the 287(g) agreement. A city spokesperson said Monday that it is 'too premature' to say whether the item will be deferred. She did not directly respond to questions asking if a potential deferral was related to current events like the L.A. protests or the travel ban that went into effect Monday. Municipal and local police departments are not explicitly required to join 287(g) agreements, but Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier have argued that under the state's sanctuary law, they are mandated to do so. Uthmeier threatened to punish Fort Myers City Council members earlier this year when they declined to enroll in the program. Still, most Miami-Dade cities, including Miami Beach and Miami Gardens, have yet to join the program, according to ICE's database for participating agencies. Entering the 287(g) agreement could have a major impact in Miami, where about 58% of residents are foreign born and over 70% are Hispanic or Latino, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. With just under a half-million people, Miami is the largest city in Miami-Dade County and the second largest in Florida. Miami would join a list of other Miami-Dade cities that have entered 287(g) agreements in recent months, including Hialeah, Sweetwater, Coral Gables, West Miami, Sunny Isles Beach and Miami Springs. If it happens this week, the City Commission vote would land at a time of increased uncertainty for non-citizens, with the Trump administration implementing a series of immigration policies in recent weeks that have targeted communities with large populations in South Florida. In addition to Monday's travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled late last month in favor of a Trump administration plan that ended the humanitarian parole program known as CHNV, which allowed people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to legally enter the United States. The decision affects more than 500,000 migrants who were granted temporary legal status.
WIRED
23 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Sarah Huckabee Sanders calls out Newsom for 'insane' National Guard fight
All times eastern Making Money with Charles Payne FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: 'The Will Cain Show' on the LA riots destroying Newsom's presidential chances
