U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., of the Southern District of Texas – Brownsville Division ruled that President Donald Trump cannot use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for deportations.
The case is the one out of D.C. that has given Trump headaches. The Supreme Court said the D.C. District Court did not have jurisdiction over the case since the plaintiff’s “claims fall within the core of the writ of habeas corpus” and must take place within the district where they’re detained.
However, Rodriguez said his ruling does not stop the defendants “to continue removal proceedings or enforcement of any final orders of removal issued against” the plaintiffs “or against any member of the certified class, under the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
In other words, stick with the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The petitioners, identified as J.A.V., J.G.G., and W.G.H., all Venezuelans, claimed Trump’s administration violated their due process rights and denied that they belonged to Tren de Aragua (TdA).
“As a corollary, the Court concludes that a Presidential declaration invoking the AEA must include sufficient factual statements or refer to other pronouncements that enable a court to determine whether the alleged conduct satisfies the conditions that support the invocation of the statute,” wrote Rodriguez. “The President cannot summarily declare that a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated an invasion or predatory incursion of the United States, followed by the identification of the alien enemies subject to detention or removal.”
Trump invoked the AEA and declared TdA a Foreign Terrorist Organization for “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.”
Trump ordered the deportations of members of TdA over the age 14 “as Alien Enemies.”
Rodriguez interprets the word “invasion” as when America is invaded “by a military force or an organized, armed force, with the purpose of conquering or obtaining control over territory.” Rodriguez wrote:
The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of 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. Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of “invasion” for purposes of the AEA. As for “predatory incursion,” the Proclamation does not describe an armed group of individuals entering the United States as an organized unit to attack a city, coastal town, or other defined geographical area, with the purpose of plundering or destroying property and lives. While the Proclamation references that TdA members have harmed lives in the United States and engage in crime, the Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack, or that Venezuela has threatened or attempted such an attack through TdA members. As a result, the Proclamation also falls short of describing a “predatory incursion” as that concept was understood at the time of the AEA’s enactment.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY