Latest news with #AEA
The Hindu
13 hours ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Should India amend its nuclear energy laws?
Discussions are ongoing in India to amend the nuclear liability framework, regulated by the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962, to allow private companies to build and operate nuclear energy-generation facilities. This move is part of a broader strategy to expand India's nuclear energy capacity from the current 8 GW to 100 GW by 2047, aligning with the country's clean energy goals. Should India amend its nuclear energy laws? Ashley Tellis and D. Raghunandan discuss the question in a conversation moderated by Kunal Shankar. Edited excerpts: Do you support the proposed amendments to India's nuclear energy laws? Ashley Tellis: If India has set for itself a goal of expanding nuclear energy, it cannot reach that goal without expanding its domestic capacity. If we are talking of a timeline that is, say, 20 years, we must supplement those indigenous capabilities with foreign participation. This is where there is a roadblock. Current Indian law prevents foreign participation. The imagined future when we negotiated the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal in 2008 was that foreign companies would participate in India's nuclear renaissance. That dream has been frustrated by the legal evolution in the liability regime in India since 2000. So I would cheer the Prime Minister on, with respect to getting these amendments done. D. Raghunandan: The idea of amending the law to attract foreign investment to expand nuclear power generation capacity in India is based on two flawed arguments or assumptions. The first is that the roadblock to expansion of nuclear power is one of investment. The second is that no major nuclear supplier country has shown domestic capacity expansion at the rate at which we assume India will expand. We have not seen that happen in the U.S. or France. Britain does not have much capacity anyway; Japan is on a slow track. Only China, perhaps, has the capacity to expand at scale and I don't see major Chinese investment coming into India. Ashley Tellis: The Indian nuclear liability law is a genuine impediment to foreign participation in the sector. Companies from France, Japan, and the U.S. have said they cannot enter the market if the current law stands. Russia is an interesting case because Rosatom is a parastatal. Even Rosatom refused to accept India's liability law. India indemnified Rosatom through a contractual agreement reached in 2008 before the liability law was passed. After 2010, that is not an option available to the government because to indemnify through a private contract would violate parliamentary intention. This law affects Indian industry as well. The Department of Atomic Energy (DEA) had NPCIL (Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd) indemnify Indian private suppliers through contractual agreements. The problem started at Kovvada; after the civil liability legislation was passed, domestic suppliers refused to supply components. So NPCIL, through contractual agreements, waived liability using a rationale that if there is a failure in components made to their specifications, it is NPCIL's fault, a logic that is suspect and never tested in court. Raghu is right: the U.S. is driving this pressure, partly for political and economic reasons. If we want foreign participation, we have to amend the law. Regarding supply-side capacity, whether we have it now is suspect. But this investment in India is over a long horizon. Western nuclear suppliers are responsive to market signals and will build up capacity if demand presents itself. One of the reservations with private companies' participation has been about technology transfer, particularly as this is considered a strategic space with attendant security risks. Even if India were to amend the AEA, would the level of technology transfer that took place under agreements in the past between Russia and India take place in future? Particularly in the case of the Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) that appear to be gaining ground as a safer alternative to large nuclear reactors? Ashley Tellis: This is a commercial question. If your suppliers are private entities, their technology transfer decisions will be based on profitability. Governments don't have powers to force a private entity to transfer technology. The U.S. will have a role through its licensing process for what technology transfer is permitted. For example, the U.S. permitted Westinghouse to transfer certain reactor design technologies to China, a decision Westinghouse probably rues because the AP1000 technology was cloned by the Chinese. My expectation is that India will seek technology transfer and will probably get some, consistent with company profitability and what the U.S. government will want to protect for national security or proliferation reasons. Even Rosatom has not done a complete transfer of VVER-1000 technology to India; they have allowed India to build sub-components but maintain proprietary control over many elements, especially in the hot section, related to advanced materials and chemistry. This will not be a showstopper. Newer companies involved in SMRs are actually more enthusiastic about technology transfer than old majors because it is an economic decision to access the market, get economies of scale, and increase profit. This will not be a serious problem. The bigger problems are high capital costs and how much money will India be able to invest. D. Raghunandan: A lot of this debate is based on hypotheticals and we cannot frame policies based on those. For 15 years, India has been chasing technology transfer and investment in defence, increasing FDI from 25% to 100%, yet no major foreign company invested or transferred technology because it's not in their interest. So I am not convinced that new futuristic technologies such as SMRs, which India does not possess, will transform the nuclear energy landscape if they come to India. The argument often comes down to making smaller 200 MW or even 60-70 MW reactors instead of 500 MW ones. In its last Budget, India earmarked money for five small reactors based on the pressurised heavy water cycle that it is familiar with. The question is attracting investment to scale this up. Dr. Tellis, considering India is a developing country with other commitments, for these newer SMR suppliers, would it not be fair to seek compensation [if things go wrong] because it's an untested technology? Ashley Tellis: No, I don't think so. The Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) is an international effort to create an environment conducive for expanding nuclear power production and understanding its inherent risks. The CSC's purpose in a nuclear accident is not to litigate who is responsible, but to rush compensation to those affected. It has three key principles: first, all liability is channeled to the operator. Second, a pre-accident fund is created (the Convention has a three-tiered fund). Third, supplier liability is permitted if it's through contract or if there are issues of wilful misconduct; there isn't an overarching principle of supplier liability because of the fear of litigation delays. This model assumes an environment with adequate design review and a neutral regulatory authority not linked to the operator or supplier. If a real nuclear accident occurs, the sovereign on whose territory it occurs is the ultimate guarantor of protection. The question was how to create a regime allowing them to pick from a readily available pool of money, hence the insurance pool systems. Regarding SMRs, the problem is not design immaturity. Many SMRs have very advanced passive designs. The real problem SMRs will face is economic: capital costs are still extremely high. We don't know if the SMR cost will be disproportionately smaller. A big assumption with SMRs is that they will be manufactured through an assembly line process in a factory and components transported and assembled on site. I have greater faith in the SMR technology than in the assembly line model of manufacturing just yet. Listen to the conversation in The Hindu Parley podcast
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
A Federal Judge Orders Relief for Alleged Gang Members Deported and Imprisoned Without Due Process
On April 7 in Trump v. J.G.G., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that foreign nationals who allegedly are subject to immediate deportation as "alien enemies" have a due process right to contest that designation. But where does that leave deportees who were denied that opportunity before they were peremptorily shipped off to prison in El Salvador last March? A preliminary injunction that a federal judge granted on Wednesday supplies an answer: The Trump administration "must facilitate [their] ability" to file habeas corpus petitions and "ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process." James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, does not get more specific than that. Cognizant of the "sensitive diplomatic or national-security concerns" raised by interactions between the U.S. government and the Salvadoran officials who are imprisoning deportees at its behest, he invites the Trump administration to "propose" how it will comply with his order. But his decision underlines the importance of due process, the constitutional requirement that President Donald Trump sought to evade by invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The named plaintiffs in this case, who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "vehemently deny" any affiliation with Tren de Aragua and "claim that they were never able to challenge the accusation before being removed," Boasberg notes. They were "already being transported to the airport and loaded onto planes" bound for El Salvador before Trump published the March 15 proclamation that supposedly justified their removal based on a rarely used, 227-year-old statute that previously had been invoked only during declared wars. They "were not told" where they were going or why. It turned out they were being transferred to El Salvador's notorious Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) under an agreement with that country's government. "These men allege that they were not informed that they had been designated alien enemies or that they could challenge that designation," Boasberg writes. "Since their removal, they have been held incommunicado at CECOT." Boasberg likens this situation to the one that confronts Josef K., the protagonist of Franz Kafka's novel The Trial, who "awakens to encounter two strange men outside his room." After he "realizes that he is under arrest," he "asks the strangers why" but "receives no answer." He is told that "proceedings are under way and you'll learn everything in due course." He again asks why he is being arrested. "Now there you go again," a guard replies. "We don't answer such questions." He assures Josef K. that "there's been no mistake" because "our department" is only "attracted by guilt." Under the Fifth Amendment, Boasberg notes, the government's assertion that it infallibly identifies the guilty "does not suffice." As the Supreme Court confirmed in Trump v. J.G.G., which addressed a temporary restraining order (TRO) that Boasberg issued during an earlier round of the ACLU's litigation, "'it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law' in the context of removal proceedings," meaning "the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard 'appropriate to the nature of the case.'" Specifically, the justices said, "AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs." The Court nevertheless vacated Boasberg's TRO, ruling that AEA detainees must file habeas corpus petitions in the jurisdiction where they are held rather than challenge their deportation under the Administrative Procedure Act in the District of Columbia. But Boasberg concludes that his intervention is necessary to vindicate that right for deportees who were denied due process. "We are skeptical of the self-defeating notion that the right to the notice necessary to 'actually seek habeas relief'…must itself be vindicated through individual habeas petitions, somehow by plaintiffs who have not received notice," the Supreme Court said last month in AARP v. Trump. That comment, Boasberg argues, supports his preliminary injunction. "Absent this relief," he warns, "the Government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action." The ACLU says more than 130 people deported before the Supreme Court's order "remain imprisoned at CECOT." Boasberg's injunction applies to a class consisting of "all noncitizens removed from U.S. custody and transferred" to CECOT on March 15 and 16 "pursuant solely to" Trump's proclamation. It therefore excludes people who were deported under separate legal authority. But it includes people who were subsequently transferred to a different facility. Otherwise, Boasberg says, "they would be arbitrarily excluded from that class—even though their underlying injury meriting injunctive relief would remain unchanged." After the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. J.G.G., Boasberg notes, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official described "the current parameters of the process the Government believes adequate." It involves "an English-only form that makes no mention of the right to file a habeas petition," coupled with "oral interpretation or assistance" for detainees who do not speak English or cannot read. A detainee then has 12 hours to "express" his "intent to file a habeas petition." If he hits that deadline, he has another 24 hours to file the petition. The Supreme Court subsequently cast doubt on the Trump administration's understanding of due process. AEA detainees "must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief," the justices said in AARP v. Trump. "Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster." Lower courts addressing this question "have uniformly agreed," Boasberg notes. "The amount of time they have deemed constitutionally sufficient to enable detainees to file habeas petitions after receiving notice has ranged from 10 to 21 days—but never as few as 36 hours or even close. Courts have also held that the notice to detainees must be provided in a language they understand [and] must offer enough information for detainees to pursue their right to seek judicial review. At least one court has held that the notice must inform individuals of the 'particular allegations' establishing the Government's case for alien-enemy designation." The plaintiffs in this case "got none of that," Boasberg observes. They did not even benefit from the farcical version of due process that the government now claims is adequate. Several federal judges have rejected Trump's dubious interpretation of the AEA, saying it makes no sense to describe alleged Tren de Aragua members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that has launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." Boasberg does not address that issue. Nor does he reach any conclusions regarding the plaintiffs' status under the AEA. "Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act," Boasberg writes. "Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But—and this is the critical point—there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so. Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made. And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations." A government "confident of the legal or evidentiary basis for its actions has nothing to fear" from respecting due process, Boasberg writes. "It is, after all, 'central to our system of ordered liberty.'" Trump has condemned Boasberg as a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!" But it is Trump, who treats the right to due process as an inconvenience that can be overridden by presidential fiat, who is proposing a radical change to our legal system. The post A Federal Judge Orders Relief for Alleged Gang Members Deported and Imprisoned Without Due Process appeared first on
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
How to Tyranny-Proof America's Future
COMPARED TO HIS PREDECESSORS, Donald Trump has moved faster and on a much larger scale to target individuals, categories of people, and organizations for reasons personal (think 'revenge tour') and political (think mass deportations, attacks on law firms). If a future Congress ever wants to prevent a repeat of these kinds of abuses, there are many specific reforms that should be enacted. But it's not enough to focus narrowly on Trump's actions. The presidents who came before him set their own precedents and examples—often affirmed by Congress and the courts—that have also contributed to the present breakdown of our constitutional order. If Congress and the courts had not ceded so much raw, coercive power to the presidency, we might not now be facing a chief executive busily subverting the few remaining meaningful constitutional safeguards separating a republic from a tyranny. To think more clearly about how Congress must act to provide independence to both law enforcement and the judiciary, let's start with a turbo-speed history lesson. In my new book, The Triumph of Fear, I catalogue a sixty-year period from William McKinley through Dwight Eisenhower in which, with perhaps the sole exception of Warren Harding, every man elected to the presidency misused the power handed to him to spy on and even politically persecute his political enemies—real or imagined. Share Following the exposure in the 1970s of many unconstitutional government-run surveillance and subversion programs, Congress passed multiple reforms to try to prevent future presidents from engaging in such abusive conduct. Unfortunately, every one of those 1970s-era reforms—be it the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Inspector General Act, or the creation of the House and Senate intelligence committees—has failed to prevent presidential misconduct. The underlying assumption when they were adopted—that future presidents would find it difficult to work around or subvert them—was false. Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary stretch back to his first term in office and have only increased during the first months of his second term. His invocation of the two-century-old Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for lightning-fast, due process–free mass deportation operations is best thought of as a 'proof of concept' of his playbook for authoritarian consolidation in the presidency at the expense of Congress, the courts, and ultimately the Constitution itself. Trump's ongoing defiance of court orders in the AEA cases is reinforced by the willingness—if not eagerness—of federal law enforcement agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the FBI, and even federally deputized state and local law enforcement officers to carry out his deportation orders despite multiple federal court rulings to the contrary. Which brings to mind one area where Trump hasn't yet abused his power—but he might. Let us help you see around corners: Sign up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription to get our independent journalism delivered to your inbox. Under current law, all federal law enforcement officers fall under the control of the executive branch, including the United States Marshals Service, which is charged by statute with protecting both court facilities and staff (especially judges). But what if Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, elected to declare that statute unconstitutional? What if Bondi asserted that Trump could, at his discretion, order the marshals to leave their judicial-protection duties and instead join ICE, HSI, FBI, and other law enforcement on mass deportation operations? An Office of Legal Counsel opinion, written during the Jimmy Carter administration and updated during the Obama administration, asserts that, 'While there is no general privilege in the Executive to disregard laws that it deems inconsistent with the Constitution, in rare cases the Executive's duty to the constitutional system may require action in defiance of a statute. In such a case, the Executive's refusal to defend and enforce an unconstitutional statute is authorized and lawful.' That OLC opinion, accepted by every one of Trump's predecessors over the last forty-five years, could provide Trump and Bondi with at least a fig leaf of bipartisan political and legal cover to reduce or eliminate marshals protection for judges Trump deems 'radical' or otherwise objectionable. This threat has prompted some members of Congress to propose a solution designed to provide protection for judges that Trump or any of his successors could never remove. Shortly before the Memorial Day holiday, Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Alex Padilla (D-Cal.), and Adam Schiff (D-Cal.), along with Representatives Eric Swalwell (D-Cal.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), introduced the MARSHALS Act, legislation that would move the Marshals Service out of the executive branch and place it under the control of the federal judiciary. It's a great idea that has zero chance of becoming law this session—but it demonstrates that at least some Senate and House members are willing to remove some of the armed, coercive law enforcement power currently under presidential control. That alone is a mental and political breakthrough that all those loyal to the constitutional republic should embrace. Share The Bulwark THE MARSHALS ACT IS JUST ONE example of the kind of legislative action that needs to be taken to prevent future presidential domestic political repression. Many other changes are needed as well; law professors, political activists, and commentators on constitutional matters are all likely to have their own lists of needful reforms—most of which will boil down to taking away the tools that make repression possible. My preference, as someone who has closely studied the abuses arising from presidential control of law enforcement, would be for a constitutional amendment that would move all but two federal law enforcement organizations from the executive branch to the control of the federal judiciary. The Secret Service (which protects the president and vice president) and the Federal Protective Service (which secures most federal buildings) would remain in the executive branch, but all other federal law enforcement would come under the control of the federal judiciary . . . and thus outside the control of an inherently political branch of government. Such a constitutional amendment should also modify current law to ensure that no president can call up a state's National Guard units for 'civil disturbance,' immigration enforcement, or any other domestic mission without the express written consent of the state's governor. This would safeguard against a future president calling up National Guard troops to shoot political protesters, as Trump wanted to do in the summer of 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests. Such an amendment would go far to restore and preserve our constitutional republic. But it would unquestionably be a very heavy political lift, to put it mildly. In the meantime, advocates should start laying the groundwork—doing the necessary research and drafting legislative language—for congressional action on other reforms, such as strengthening search and seizure protections, setting national training standards for all law enforcement officers, and creating a meaningful private right of action for police misconduct. Absent a dramatic (perhaps tragic) major political event, it's all but impossible to imagine any of these proposals becoming law while Trump is still in office. But introducing them now is critical for building support for them so that once he's out of office and a new Congress committed to preserving the constitutional order is in place, it can act quickly, while the memory of Trumpian abuses is fresh, to prevent a recurrence. We owe that to ourselves and to generations to come. Share
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
US judge orders deported Venezuelans receive due process
AI- Generative Image WASHINGTON: A US federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's administration must allow over a hundred Venezuelans deported under an obscure wartime law to challenge accusations they are violent gang members. In a highly critical opinion, District Judge James Boasberg said the US government "must facilitate" the migrants' ability to contest their removal, without specifying what actions that would entail. Boasberg is one of several judges who has drawn Trump's ire for curtailing his efforts to wield broad executive power, after ruling against the initial migrant deportation flights. In March, the Trump administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport hundreds Venezuelan migrants by alleging they were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, expelling them to a notorious maximum security prison in El Salvador. Tren de Aragua has been designated a "foreign terrorist organization" by the Trump administration, but attorneys for several of the deported Venezuelans have said their clients were not gang members, had committed no crimes and were targeted largely on the basis of their tattoos. The Trump administration went ahead with the initial deportations of the alleged Tren de Aragua members under the AEA in March despite a restraining order from Boasberg blocking the move. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Angered by Boasberg's ruling, Trump called in March for his impeachment. The US Supreme Court in May then blocked further deportations under the AEA, saying the deported migrants were not being given enough time to legally contest their removal. Three federal district court judges have ruled that Trump's use of the AEA to carry out deportations was unconstitutional, while one, a Trump appointee, said it was permissible. Boasberg on Wednesday offered no ruling on the legality of using the AEA to deport migrants, and acknowledged the deportees could be gang members. "But -- and this is the critical point -- there is simply no way to know for sure as (they) never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so," he wrote in the filing. Boasberg opened his ruling by comparing the treatment of the Venezuelan deportees to the main character of "The Trial" by Franz Kafka. The government "must facilitate" the deportees ability to contest their removal, the judge said, adding that "exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings." The Trump administration has claimed that it doesn't have the power to bring back the deported migrants, raising fears that its defiance of federal court orders was placing the country on the cusp of a constitutional crisis.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge says migrants sent to El Salvador prison must get a chance to challenge their removals
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration must give more than 100 migrants sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador a chance to challenge their deportations. U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg said that people who were sent to the prison in March under an 18th-century wartime law haven't been able to formally contest the removals or allegations that they are members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. He ordered the administration to work toward giving them a way to file those challenges. The judge wrote that 'significant evidence' has surfaced indicating that many of the migrants imprisoned in El Salvador are not connected to the gang 'and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.' Boasberg gave the administration one week to come up with a manner in which the "at least 137" people can make those claims, even while they're formally in the custody of El Salvador. It's the latest milestone in the monthslong legal saga over the fate of deportees imprisoned at El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center. After Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in March and prepared to fly planeloads of accused gang members to El Salvador and out of the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, Boasberg ordered them to turn the planes around. This demand was ignored. Boasberg has found probably cause that the administration committed contempt of court after the flight landed. El Salvador President Nayib Bukele posted a taunting message on social media — reposted by some of Trump's top aides — that read 'Oopsie, too late.' The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that anyone targeted under the AEA has the right to appeal to a judge to contest their designation as an enemy of the state. Boasberg, in his latest, ruling wrote that he was simply applying that principle to those who'd been removed. Boasberg said the administration 'plainly deprived' the immigrants of a chance to challenge their removals before they were put on flights. Therefore, he says the government must handle the migrants cases now as if they 'would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process.' The administration and its supporters have targeted Boasberg for his initial order halting deportations and his contempt inquiry, part of their growing battle with the judiciary as it puts the brakes on Trump's efforts to unilaterally remake government. The fight has been particularly harsh in the realm of immigration, where Trump has repeatedly said it'd be impossible to protect the country from dangerous immigrants if each one has his or her day in court. 'We cannot give everyone a trial!' the president posted on his social media site, Truth Social, after the Supreme Court intervened a second time in the AEA saga, halting a possible effort to evade its initial ruling by temporarily freezing deportations from northern Texas. Boasberg wrote that he accepted the administration's declaration, filed under seal, providing details of the government's deal with El Salvador to house deportees and how that means the Venezuelans are technically under the legal control of El Salvador and not the United States. He added, while noting there is a criminal penalty for providing false testimony, that believing those representations was 'rendered more difficult given the Government's troubling conduct throughout this case.' He also noted parallels with another case where the Trump administration admitted it mistakenly deported a Maryland man to El Salvador and has been ordered by a judge, appellate judges and the U.S. Supreme Court to 'facilitate' his return. That man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, remains in El Salvador more than two months later. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt welcomed Boasberg's ruling. 'This is a significant step forward to getting these men the chance to show that they should not ever have been removed under a wartime authority,' Gelernt told reporters in San Diego after a hearing in an unrelated case. Boasberg's order is only the latest of a blizzard of legal rulings in the sprawling AEA case. Several judges have temporarily halted deportations under the act in parts of Texas, New York, California, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, finding the administration's 24 hour window that it gave detainees to challenge their designation under the act did not meet the Supreme Court's requirement of providing a 'reasonable' chance to seek relief. Deportations of people in the country illegally can continue in those areas under laws other than the AEA, Some of the judges in those cases have also found that Trump cannot use the act to target a criminal gang rather than a state, noting that the act has only been invoked three prior times in history — during the War of 1812 and during World Wars I and II. The Supreme Court will likely eventually decide those issues. The Trump administration contends that the gang is acting as a shadow arm of Venezuela's government. _______
