Latest news with #Gelernt
The Herald Scotland
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Appeals court weighs 1798 law for Trump deportations of Venezuelans
But legal challenges erupted as he flew more than 200 detainees to a notorious prison in El Salvador on March 15 without giving them a chance to challenge their deportation in court. Many of the detainees denied being gang members and did not have a criminal record. At least 50 of the Venezuelans were in the United States legally, according to a Cato Institute review. The Supreme Court paused the deportations in April while the case is litigated, to give detainees a chance to dispute their gang membership, without ruling on whether Trump was justified in using the law. In returning to the case June 30, judges at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans focused on whether Tren de Aragua's actions in the U.S. qualify under the statute as "predatory incursion." American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Lee Gelernt said the law was drafted for military conflicts with other countries and has been invoked only three times during declared wars to argue that it does not apply to the current situation. "It has to be an armed, organized force," Gelernt said, not clandestine acts of secretive organizations. "This was a precursor to all-out war." Drew Ensign, deputy solicitor general with the Justice Department, said Trump was within his power to declare anyone to be a member of the gang, label the gang terrorists and deport them. "The president's proclamation is plainly a lawful exercise of his extensive powers under the Alien Enemies Act," Ensign said. Trump's determinations are "subject only to extremely limited and deferential review," Ensign said. Judge Leslie Southwick, who was appointed by George W. Bush, said the gang might not be preparing for a larger military invasion, but engaging in activities similar to the threats from enemy ships or Native Americans when the statute was written. "I'm having a hard time drawing the line," Southwick said. "Why wouldn't this be similar to what privateers were doing, Indians were doing, which is a temporary incursion into some area causing damage and escaping back out?" Judge Andrew Oldham, who was appointed by Trump, asked repeatedly whether the Supreme Court had ruled the judges could countermand the president's order. Gelernt eventually acknowledged the court had not. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was appointed by Joe Biden, asked whether detainees had enough time to file a notice to fight their deportation in court. After the Supreme Court's decision, Ensign said detainees are now given seven days to contest their membership in the gang. Gelernt said it is very difficult for detainees to contact lawyers and build their cases so they deserve 30 days. The judges gave no deadline for when they would decide the case.
New York Post
01-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Federal appeals court judges appear skeptical of arguments against Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act
A pair of judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical of arguments against President Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport suspected Venezuelan gang members. The conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Monday for just under an hour from both Trump administration lawyers defending the president's invocation of the 18th-century act and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys representing some of the alleged members of Tren de Aragua the administration is seeking to remove under the wartime law. The legal battle before the New Orleans-based court — which appears destined to eventually be decided by the Supreme Court — aims to determine whether Trump lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March to target the Venezuelan prison gang, and, if so, how much notice a migrant targeted for deportation must be given before removal from the US. Advertisement The Alien Enemies Act case appears destined to land at the Supreme Court, regardless of how the 5th Circuit rules. via REUTERS At one point in the hearing, Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, asked ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt if he was aware of any case law that shows you can 'second-guess the president of the United States' when the commander in chief finds there is a military conflict. Oldham specifically asked the lawyer arguing against Trump's use of the 1798 law to point to a Supreme Court case where the justices determined 'you can countermand the president of the United States when he says we are in an armed conflict.' Advertisement Gelernt said there wasn't a case, acknowledging that the 5th circuit's ruling on the Alien Enemies Act would be precedent setting. On March 14, Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, declaring that Tren de Aragua 'is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.' Trump, 79, said the gang 'is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare' against the US on behalf of the regime of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, 'clandestine or otherwise.' The gang, whose members have allegedly taken over apartment complexes and been involved in the kidnapping and torture of victims in the US, was designated a foreign terrorist organization by the Trump administration in February. Advertisement Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, asked Gelernt during the hearing why Tren de Aragua's actions in the US couldn't be considered an armed conflict. 'It has to be an armed, organized force,' Gelernt responded. 'The founders were not looking at this as some subtle clandestine thing.' Southwick noted: 'Here the president is proclaiming that you have – directed by or interwoven with the Venezuelan government – unrecognized, US terrorists.' 'I'm having a hard time drawing the line,' the judge added. Advertisement Gelernt insisted that 'the founders were concerned with large-scale activity,' dismissing Tren de Aragua's activities in the US as 'isolated crimes' that don't warrant use of the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU lawyer's argument centered on Trump's proclamation not specifically indicating that Venezuela is at war with the US, but that the gang is – which Gelernt asserted is not sufficient to use the Alien Enemies Act. He argued the provision can only be invoked as a 'precursor to all-out war.' 'The face of the proclamation does not say we are in a military conflict,' Gelernt told the panel of judges. Trump invoked the wartime law in March to swiftly deport alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. REUTERS Meanwhile, Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argued Trump used the Alien Enemies Act correctly and that the president's decision should be given 'the utmost deference.' Southwick asked Ensign to explain 'what the role of the president is in the declaration of war and when is it reviewable.' 'As to invasion or predatory incursion… the president is given extraordinary deference and is not reviewable at all,' Ensign argued. Advertisement When Southwick asked what part of the use of the AEA is reviewable, Ensign admitted that all the terms are reviewable but maintained 'the presidential determination is not subject to review … but if it is, it's subject to extremely deferential review.' 'TdA is present in over 40 states in this country,' Ensign maintained. 'They have taken over entire apartment buildings.' 'The FBI has assessed that it is likely that the TdA will try to carry out targeted assassinations of the Maduro regime… political assassinations of Maduro regime critics in the US,' he continued, making the case that all of this 'clearly supports the determination that an invasion and predatory incursion has occurred.' 'This is not an ordinary criminal gang, hopelessly enmeshed with the Maduro regime, carrying out assassinations of critics of the Maduro regime … they are a foreign terrorist organization. It is a big deal, and presents substantial dangers to the US and our public safety.' Advertisement On the amount of notice that alleged Tren de Aragua members should be given before they're deported, the Trump administration said the standard should give migrants seven days to appeal their removal, while the ACLU countered that 30 days notice – the amount of time given to suspected Nazis during World War II (when the Alien Enemies Act was last invoked) – should be allowed. The panel of appellate judges, which also includes Biden-appointed Judge Irma Ramirez, did not provide a timeline for when they would rule on the case. The outcome will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court by whichever side the court rules against.
17-05-2025
- Politics
Families separated by Trump's 'zero-tolerance' policy at risk due to lapse in legal services, ACLU argues
Hundreds of parents and children separated under the "zero-tolerance" border policy during President Donald Trump's first term -- who were later reunited and protected by a 2023 settlement -- are at risk of being separated again due to a lapse in legal services, lawyers argue. Under the 2023 court-approved settlement agreement, reached as a result of a class-action lawsuit filed in 2018, the federal government agreed to provide certain services to an estimated 5,000 people -- families and children separated under the 2017-2018 "zero tolerance" policy -- including behavioral health services and immigration legal services. However, the ACLU says a recent decision made by the Trump administration to gut and then abruptly terminate a contract with the Acacia Center for Justice violates that agreement, leaving hundreds of migrants in legal limbo. The nonprofit organization is the main contractor that oversees services provided to separated families, such as helping them apply for parole and other benefits they're "mandated" to receive at the government's expense, the American Civil Liberties Union argues. An estimated 414 migrants who are eligible for benefits are at risk of deportation because their legal status is set to expire by the end of the month if they don't receive the help Acacia was offering them, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt argued during a federal court hearing Friday in the Southern District of California. "If they don't have parole, they're subject to arrest, deportation and re-separation," Gelernt said during the hearing. The Trump administration argues that it wants to provide those services on its own -- through the Executive Office for Immigration Review's Helpdesk, "or a separate similar program" and that it is not prohibited by the 2023 agreement from doing so. An attorney representing the Trump administration said they had already emailed more than 52,000 individuals on their list of pro bono providers to see if they could represent some of the people covered under the settlement. As of May 15, however, only 71 had "expressed interest," so far, according to documents submitted in court. "On the record before the court now there's not enough to show a breach, and I can understand why the court is directing the parties to provide more information," the government attorney said. "But again, right now, it is speculation and as the government noted in its response to the plaintiff's motion, they have not provided one class member who has been deprived of services required under the settlement. So again, I think we're getting way ahead by speculating on things that may or may not happen." Gelernt countered by saying even if those 71 providers eventually offer to help, it's not enough to deal with the thousands of cases that are now in limbo because of Acacia's absence. "We spent two years working through this and the government understood that the only way to do this and provide people real, meaningful help was this structure," Gelernt said, referring to the years of negotiation leading to the 2023 settlement. "This can't be a sort of sideshow for the government. They'll get to it when they get to it. Acacia woke up every morning with all its subcontractors, and all day long, worked on this as a full-time matter with their subcontractors." Judge Dana Makoto Sabraw set another hearing for May 30 and asked both sides to provide additional information about what services the government could reasonably provide. "If Mr. Gelernt is correct in his assessment, in his understanding of the full landscape of these class members, the services they need, the services that were provided by Acacia, in his view, that there's simply no way in the real world that 71 or a few more volunteer pro bono attorneys can pick up this caseload that Acacia was addressing, that, too, could lead to a finding of breach of the settlement agreement. But I need additional evidence in order to make those determinations," the judge said. Gelernt said that if the government now seeks to provide these services, affected class members may not trust them enough to reach out. "I don't know whether people will reach out to the government, because it's the same government, obviously, that separated them," he said.
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Inside the ACLU's race to stop Venezuelans' deportation to Salvadoran prison
The American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney described to ABC News the rapid pace of legal action that led to the extraordinary ruling from the Supreme Court early Saturday morning that blocks the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador. Lee Gelernt said the ACLU began to learn Thursday night that the migrants could be moved from a detention center in Texas as early as that night, so they filed in the middle of the night. 'We just kept pushing and ended up filing in multiple courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, at 1 a.m. on Friday night, early Saturday morning, stopped the removals,' Gelernt said in an interview with ABC News. 'But it was touch and go for a long time.' MORE: Van Hollen: 'I am not defending the man, I am defending the rights of this man to due process' The ACLU says migrants held in the Texas detention center received a notice and were told they'd be removed in 12 to 24 hours. 'Under the Alien Enemies Act, you have been determined to be an alien enemy subject to apprehension, restraint and removal from the United States,' the notice reads, which was filed in court by the ACLU. The document is written in English and says migrants can make a phone call, although it does say the notice will be read to the individual in a language they understand. It did not include any method to contest the order. 'The government is providing only 12 to 24 hours with a notice that was served in English that does not explain that people have the right to contest, nor tell them how to do it or how much time they have to do it,' Gelernt said. 'There is no argument whatsoever that these notice procedures comply with the Supreme Court's directive.' The girlfriend of one of the migrants held in the detention center told ABC News he received a document that appeared to be the same one that the ACLU filed in court. She says he told her it was hard to understand. She added that he said he and a group of detainees were taken to an airport near the facility on Friday and they were about to be deported. Then, he told her, once they arrived, an officer informed the group they were being sent back to the center and would not board the plane. Gelernt said the stakes couldn't be any higher and that Kilmar Abrego Garcia -- the Salvadoran native living Maryland who was deported in March to a mega-prison in his home country -- isn't the only person who was 'erroneously' sent to the notorious CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador. 'They're unilaterally claiming that people are members of a gang, but not giving them the opportunity to go into court and show they're not. And we know that multiple, multiple people have been erroneously tagged as members of this gang, but once they get to the El Salvadoran prison, they may never get out for the rest of their life,' Gelernt said. 'It's critical that we give them hearings before we take such an extraordinary action," he added. Inside the ACLU's race to stop Venezuelans' deportation to Salvadoran prison originally appeared on
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Inside the ACLU's race to stop Venezuelans' deportation to Salvadoran prison
The American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney described to ABC News the rapid pace of legal action that led to the extraordinary ruling from the Supreme Court early Saturday morning that blocks the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador. Lee Gelernt said the ACLU began to learn Thursday night that the migrants could be moved from a detention center in Texas as early as that night, so they filed in the middle of the night. 'We just kept pushing and ended up filing in multiple courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, at 1 a.m. on Friday night, early Saturday morning, stopped the removals,' Gelernt said in an interview with ABC News. 'But it was touch and go for a long time.' MORE: Van Hollen: 'I am not defending the man, I am defending the rights of this man to due process' The ACLU says migrants held in the Texas detention center received a notice and were told they'd be removed in 12 to 24 hours. 'Under the Alien Enemies Act, you have been determined to be an alien enemy subject to apprehension, restraint and removal from the United States,' the notice reads, which was filed in court by the ACLU. The document is written in English and says migrants can make a phone call, although it does say the notice will be read to the individual in a language they understand. It did not include any method to contest the order. 'The government is providing only 12 to 24 hours with a notice that was served in English that does not explain that people have the right to contest, nor tell them how to do it or how much time they have to do it,' Gelernt said. 'There is no argument whatsoever that these notice procedures comply with the Supreme Court's directive.' The girlfriend of one of the migrants held in the detention center told ABC News he received a document that appeared to be the same one that the ACLU filed in court. She says he told her it was hard to understand. She added that he said he and a group of detainees were taken to an airport near the facility on Friday and they were about to be deported. Then, he told her, once they arrived, an officer informed the group they were being sent back to the center and would not board the plane. Gelernt said the stakes couldn't be any higher and that Kilmar Abrego Garcia -- the Salvadoran native living Maryland who was deported in March to a mega-prison in his home country -- isn't the only person who was 'erroneously' sent to the notorious CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador. 'They're unilaterally claiming that people are members of a gang, but not giving them the opportunity to go into court and show they're not. And we know that multiple, multiple people have been erroneously tagged as members of this gang, but once they get to the El Salvadoran prison, they may never get out for the rest of their life,' Gelernt said. 'It's critical that we give them hearings before we take such an extraordinary action," he added. Inside the ACLU's race to stop Venezuelans' deportation to Salvadoran prison originally appeared on
