Latest news with #AlienEnemies
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Admin Must Facilitate Return Of Another Wrongfully Deported Man, Appeals Court Rules
For the second time in as many months, a federal appeals court declined to pause a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of a foreign national wrongfully deported to El Salvador. In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay a key portion of a lower court order out of Maryland that found a 20-year-old Venezuelan man was removed to the CECOT prison on March 15 under the Alien Enemies Act in violation of an existing 2024 court-approved settlement agreement which barred the removal of asylum seekers like him. The man is proceeding in the case under the pseudonym 'Cristian.' Cristian's case is similar to that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, another wrongful deportation case out of Maryland in which the Trump administration has been ordered by the Supreme Court to facilitate the detainee's return but continues to defy the order. Unlike Cristian, Abrego Garcia was not removed under the Alien Enemies Act, although his removal was on the same day that three planes flew detainees from Texas to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia's removal was in violation of a court order barring his removal, not a settlement agreement. Abrego Garcia is seeking a writ of habeas corpus whereas Cristian's case is a breach of contract claim. In Cristian's case, U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher issued her order for the government to facilitate his return on April 23. The Trump administration appealed her ruling to the 4th Circuit and asked for it to block Gallagher's order while the appeal proceeded. The 4th Circuit issued an administrative stay on May 8, pausing the case while it considered the administration's request. In deciding not to grant the Trump administration a stay on the portion of the order requiring it to facilitate Cristian's return, two of the three judges agreed but filed separate concurring opinions, not a single majority opinion. 'Nothing here is meant to pass judgement on whether Cristian is entitled to asylum—that question is beside the point,' Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, a Biden appointee, wrote in a concurring opinion with which Judge Roger Gregory joined. 'Rather, the Settlement Agreement guaranteed Cristian an adjudication of his asylum application on the merits—something his summary removal deprived him of.' Gregory, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote a separate concurring opinion that strongly rebuffed the Trump administration: 'As is becoming far too common, we are confronted again with the efforts of the Executive Branch to set aside the rule of law in pursuit of its goals. It is the duty of courts to stand as a bulwark against the political tides that seek to override constitutional protections and fundamental principles of law, even in the name of noble ends like public safety.' In dissent, Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, called the lower court order in this case 'a more potent injunction than any other court has in the numerous Alien Enemies cases pending across the country': At bottom, the district court imposed an injunction that exceeds its power. And it did so to remedy government action that did not breach the agreement—unlawful though it may have been in other ways. Because the injunction goes too far, and the government's success on the merits is therefore all but assured, I would grant a stay With the Trump administration having successfully stonewalled the court order in the Abrego Garcia case for weeks, it's not clear that it will move with any greater alacrity in this case, especially since unlike Abrego Garcia, Cristian was removed under the Alien Enemies Act. At issue on appeal was Paragraph 2 of Judge Gallagher's April 23 order: Defendants are hereby ORDERED to facilitate Class Member Cristian's return to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Facilitation includes, but is not limited to, a good faith request by Defendants to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States. The Trump administration may next ask the Supreme Court to intervene to pause the order while the case proceeds.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump-appointed judge blocks ‘unlawful' Alien Enemies Act deportations and sets up major legal battle
The Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelan immigrants accused of being gang members 'exceeds' the scope of the law and runs 'contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning' of the wartime statute. Texas District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, who was appointed by Trump himself, ruled on Thursday that the administration cannot rely on the 18th century law to detain and deport alleged Tren de Aragua members, which is 'unlawful.' The government does 'not possess the lawful authority' under the Alien Enemies Act, based on Donald Trump's proclamation invoking the law for the fourth time in U.S. history, 'to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country,' according to the judge's 36-page ruling. 'The historical record renders clear that the president's invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's terms,' he wrote. In his proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act last month, Trump stated that 'all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.' The Alien Enemies Act grants authority to the president to remove immigrants during a declared war or if there is an "invasion or predatory incursion.' But the government did not show that there exists 'an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,' and the administration 'falls short' of describing an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion,' according to Judge Rodriguez. The administration has admitted in court filings that 'many' of the people sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador did not have criminal records, and attorneys and family members say their clients and relatives — some of whom were in the country with legal permission and have upcoming court hearings on their asylum claims — have nothing to do with Tren de Aragua. On April 7, a divided Supreme Court agreed to lift a court order that temporarily blocked the president's use of the wartime law to swiftly deport people from the country while a legal challenge plays out. But justices said immigrants marked for removal are 'entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal' in front of a judge in the district where they are detained. Following that ruling, lawsuits challenging immigrants' deportations under the Alien Enemies Act have been filed in several states. This is a developing story
The Independent
01-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump-appointed judge blocks ‘unlawful' Alien Enemies Act deportations and sets up major legal battle
The Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelan immigrants accused of being gang members 'exceeds' the scope of the law and runs 'contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning' of the wartime statute. Texas District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, who was appointed by Trump himself, ruled on Thursday that the administration cannot rely on the 18th century law to detain and deport alleged Tren de Aragua members. The government does 'not possess the lawful authority' under the Alien Enemies Act, based on Donald Trump 's proclamation invoking the law for the fourth time in U.S. history, 'to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country,' according to the judge's 36-page ruling. 'The historical record renders clear that the president's invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's terms,' he wrote. In his proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act last month, Trump stated that 'all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.' But the administration has admitted in court filings that 'many' of the people sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador did not have criminal records, and attorneys and family members say their clients and relatives — some of whom were in the country with legal permission and have upcoming court hearings on their asylum claims — have nothing to do with Tren de Aragua. On April 7, a divided Supreme Court agreed to lift a court order that temporarily blocked the president's use of the wartime law to swiftly deport people from the country while a legal challenge plays out. But justices said immigrants marked for removal are 'entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal' in front of a judge in the district where they are detained. Following that ruling, lawsuits challenging immigrants' deportations under the Alien Enemies Act have been filed in several states.
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS Freezes Alien Enemy Removals In Rare, Urgent, Late-Night Order
A majority of Supreme Court justices temporarily blocked the Trump administration from removing a group of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act in an order issued in the early hours of Saturday. The order came at lighting speed for the high court, and signals a staggering level of urgency as the Trump administration continues to seek to use a dubiously invoked wartime power to remove Venezuelans to an El Salvador detention camp without any semblance of due process. The court directed the government 'not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.' The order, which was unsigned, said that Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The Supreme Court issued the order only hours after attorneys for the ACLU filed an emergency application to halt the removals of a group of Venezuelans that, it said, had received notices from ICE informing them that they were to be imminently removed from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act. The speed with which the court acted is itself a signal of the gravity of the situation. The Trump administration has spent the month since it removed more than 200 people to an El Salvador detention camp claiming both that once people have been removed from U.S. territory, there is nothing the courts can do to retrieve them, and that the President's foreign policy powers are so broad as to block the judiciary from being able to conduct any kind of inquiry. The Supreme Court's Saturday morning order is extraordinary in part for its speed. But as several legal observers noted, it's also unusual because it came before Justice Alito could finish writing his dissent. The order stated that Alito's dissent would 'follow.' Separately, as legal commentator Steve Vladeck noted, the order also suggested that the Trump administration's pattern of blatant misrepresentations in the Alien Enemies cases may be causing the court to act more aggressively. Earlier on Friday evening, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told D.C. Chief Judge James Boasberg in an emergency hearing over the removals that 'no planes' were expected to leave on Friday or Saturday. While those statements were not before the Supreme Court, the justices acted with such speed as to suggest that, if they were aware of them, they were not taking them at face value — the justices immediately froze removals until further action by the high court. The latest showdown over the Trump administration's Alien Enemies removals had been escalating throughout Friday. The last round of removals under the wartime power caused a series of massive scandals that strike at the heart of constitutional governance. In one case, the administration admitted that it accidentally removed an El Salvador citizen — Kilmar Abrego Garcia — contra an immigration court order saying he could not be removed to El Salvador due to the danger he might face there. In spite of admitting its error, the Trump administration then argued that the courts could not direct it to remedy the error. After the Supreme Court directed the administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and be ready to update the courts on its efforts, the Trump administration declined to provide meaningful information to a lower court and refused to ask the Salvadoran government for Abrego Garcia's release. It all fed into the burgeoning impression that the administration is committed to flouting the judiciary so that it can remove people from the country and then refuse to retrieve them, while claiming that the courts are powerless to do anything about it. On Thursday, rumors began to spread that the Trump administration was set to conduct another round of Alien Enemies Act removals. One immigration attorney told TPM that day that a group of Venezuelans had been moved to Bluebonnet Detention Center in northern Texas. In court filings throughout Friday, the ACLU alleged that the Venezuelans at Bluebonnet had been given notices of removal under the Alien Enemies Act, and had been told by ICE officials that the papers 'were coming from the President.' Per one copy of the notice obtained by the ACLU, the Venezuelans were told in English that they had the opportunity to make a phone call. The ACLU first filed an emergency motion on Friday in the Northern District of Texas before Judge James Wesley Hendrix, seeking to halt what they described as 'imminent' removals. At least some of the Venezuelans were purportedly moved from the Southern District of Texas, where there's a standing court order that freezes Alien Enemies Act removals, to the Northern District of Texas, where no such order exists. After Hendrix did not rule, the ACLU made an emergency appeal to the 5th Circuit on Friday afternoon. The group then appealed to the Supreme Court via its emergency docket, and also asked D.C. Chief Judge James Boasberg in a separate case to issue a 30-day nationwide injunction barring further Alien Enemies Act removals. Boasberg declined to issue that hold after a quickly arranged phone hearing on Friday evening. At the hearing, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said that he was prepared to sue in each of the country's more than 90 judicial districts to prevent further removals. Hours later, around 2 a.m., the Supreme Court ordered a halt to the removals, for now.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Trump over Alien Enemies Act deportations
The Supreme Court will allow Donald Trump to continue summarily deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members under a centuries-old wartime law after the administration deported dozens of immigrants to a notorious El Salvador prison. A divided court on Monday night agreed to lift a judge's order that temporarily blocked the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport people from the country while a legal challenge plays out, but the justices said they are 'entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal' in front of a judge. 'The only question is which court will resolve that challenge,' they wrote. Those challenges must take place in Texas, not in Washington, D.C., according to the unsigned order. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's liberal justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor in dissent. The 5-4 decision — with the court's women dissenting — follows a federal appeals court's rejection of the president's attempt to throw out a ruling from District Judge James Boasberg, who is also weighing whether to hold government officials in contempt for allegedly defying his court orders to return deportation flights to the United States before dozens of Venezuelan immigrants landed in a Salvadoran prison facing the prospect of indefinite detention. Flights were in the air on March 15 when Boasberg ordered the administration to turn the planes around after a lawsuit from the ACLU challenging their clients' removal. The judge wants to know when government lawyers relayed his verbal and written orders to administration officials and who, if anyone, gave the flights a greenlight despite the orders. In his proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act for the fourth time in U.S. history, Trump states that 'all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.' But the administration has since admitted in court filings that 'many' of the people sent to El Salvador did not have criminal records, and attorneys and family members say their clients and relatives — some of whom were in the country with legal permission and have upcoming court hearings on their asylum claims — have nothing to do with Tren de Aragua. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the Supreme Court's decision on Monday a 'a landmark victory for the rule of law.' 'An activist judge in Washington, D.C. does not have the jurisdiction to seize control of President Trump's authority to conduct foreign policy and keep the American people safe,' she said. 'The Department of Justice will continue fighting in court to make America safe again.' The Alien Enemies Act — which was most recently used to round up Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II — grants the president authority to remove 'alien enemies' during wartime or a 'predatory incursion or invasion' by a foreign power. The administration alleges that the Venezuelan government has directed Tren de Aragua in the United States. Appeals court judges said Trump 'plucks the third-order usage' of the word 'invasion' to justify summary deportations, and argued that immigration alone also does not constitute a 'predatory incursion.' Sotomayor, writing in the Supreme Court's dissent, said the majority's 'legal conclusion is suspect' and made a decision 'without mention of the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador' or 'regard for the Government's attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.' 'What if the Government later determines that it sent one of these detainees to [El Salvador's megaprison] in error? Or a court eventually decides that the President lacked authority under the Alien Enemies Act to declare that Tren de Aragua is perpetrating or attempting an 'invasion' against the territory of the United States?' she added. 'The Government takes the position that, even when it makes a mistake, it cannot retrieve individuals from the Salvadoran prisons to which it has sent them,' she said. 'The implication of the Government's position is that not only noncitizens but also United States citizens could be taken off the streets, forced onto planes, and confined to foreign prisons with no opportunity for redress if judicial review is denied unlawfully before removal. History is no stranger to such lawless regimes, but this Nation's system of laws is designed to prevent, not enable, their rise.' Sotomayor said the administration's conduct in this case 'poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law.' 'That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible,' she wrote. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this.'
