5th Circuit Blocks Trump From Using Aliens Enemies Act to Deport TdA Members
“There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces.”
A split three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked President Donald Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport illegal aliens accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).
The Alien Enemy Act of 1798 allows the president, “during a declared war or in the event of an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’ perpetrated or threatened by ‘any foreign nation or government,’ to issue regulations directing the conduct of or otherwise restraining citizens or nationals of the hostile nation or government.”
If Congress hasn’t declared war, the president can use the AEA “only upon his determination and proclamation that a foreign nation or government is conducting or threatening an ‘invasion or predatory incursion’ into the territory of the United States.”
When a president invokes the AEA, the government can “detain or remove all citizens and nationals of the hostile country, age 14 and above, in accordance with regulations promulgated for that purpose and, unless suspected of engaging in hostilities, after they are given adequate opportunity to depart of their own accord.”
Judge Leslie Southwick authored the opinion. Judge Irma Ramirez concurred on the AEA issue, but dissented on the notice.
Judge Andrew Oldham dissented on AEA, but concurred with the notice.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 5th Circuit in May, asking the court to decide two things:
The Supreme Court remanded for this court to “address (1) all the normal preliminary injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, as to the named [Petitioners’] underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal pursuant to the President’s March 14, 2025, Proclamation, and (2) the issue of what notice is due, as to the putative class’s due process claims against summary removal.”
The two judges granted the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs didn’t have proof of an invasion:
A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States. There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces. It is an action that would have been possible when the AEA was written, and the AEA would not have covered it. The AEA does not apply today either.
However, the judges did agree that it is possible that Venezuelan dictator President Nicolás Maduro worked with TdA members.
The judges agreed that “drug-trafficking is being used as a weapon,” but they held that “it is not within even an updated meaning of invasion or predatory incursion.”
Then Southwick dives into the notice issue, which she and Oldham agreed is good enough. The government initially gave the illegal aliens a 24-hour notice.
The Trump administration has updated the notice to seven days, written in a language the person understands.
The plaintiffs are seeking a 30-day notice, similar to the one used by the government in the 1940s.
Southwick wrote, “What was reasonable in the 1940s is not automatically what is reasonable today, considering the different conditions of communication, availability of counsel, number of aliens subject to the AEA, and other circumstances.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
““What was reasonable in the 1940s is not automatically what is reasonable today,”
Might not the same be said of invasion or predatory incursuion?
If only the judges were not activists, they would realize that the law need not be reasonable as long as it is Constitutional. They are not empowered to review opinion, they are only empowered to review legality under the letter of the law.
The law requires reasonable notice. In the 1940s a person needed 30 days’ notice to set his affairs in order, ship his belongings, and make an international move. Two out of three judges agreed with the administration that with modern communication and transport seven days should be enough. But 24 hours was insane; even the administration now admits it was out of line. Could you move to another country with only 24 hours’ notice?!
The real question is do we care what’s reasonable when we’re dealing with freaking terrorists? I think the answer is no, to hell with them and get them gone
If you want to rely on a law that requires reasonable notice, then yes, you have to give reasonable notice! Without it you are acting on no authority whatsoever, which makes you the criminal.
But you can reject law that explicitly defines “act of war,” by claiming “US law does not get to define what an act of war is. Then you mislabel what an act of war is as if you are the authority.
Why are you always accusing people you disagree with as being criminal or liars, when you probably only slept in a Holiday Inn Express?
The USA doesn’t get to decide what is an act of war. What is an act of war is not a question of law, to be found in some piece of legislation, and different for each country. It’s a matter of “international law”, such as it is. If you drop a bomb on someone, that’s an act of war. If you blockade someone’s port, that’s an act of war. If you sink someone’s ship, that’s an act of war. It’s a question of reality, not something our Congress can legislate one way and Mexico’s can legislate differently.
There can be no comparison between that and what we’re discussing, which is a specific law on which Trump seeks to rely. He wants to bypass the procedures required by other laws, by digging this one out and saying “Look, I found one that lets me do what I want”. Well, then he must follow it. And it explicitly requires enemy aliens to be given reasonable notice to leave the country before they can be arrested. Back in the 1790s that was probably longer than 30 days. In the 1940s it was 30 days. Now it’s 7. But notice he must give, or he can’t rely on this law.
You don’t know much about public international law either. Stop pretending to be an authority. You aren’t. You actually have no clue how it works. That’s why you constantly change the game and then go on and on stating the same thing ad nauseum. Taking things out of context, then calling those that disagree dishonest. Each act of aggression serves its own end. What may be an act of war in one situation is not necessarily an act of war in another. Guess you had to be there.
And what is ‘reasonable notice’?
On day one of this current term all illegal aliens were put on notice that they should get out or we would be apprehending them and making them get out.
That was on January 20th of this year.
That is 228 days of notice.
Far beyond ‘reasonable’.
But, of course your leftist masters and Democrat comrades will say that each must receive an individual notice and they will find some soft brained judge and lawyers of the caliber you pretend to and make the case and issue injunctions.
To people actively avoiding any such thing.
As noted above, we are far beyond reason..
The liar lies again. The law explicitly requires reasonable notice. In the 1940s that was understood to mean 30 days. This time the administration was only giving 24 hours. But in court the administration conceded that 7 days is required, and the court agreed. So now the question is answered; reasonable notice is 7 days.
Indeed, you DID lie again.
It’s as if you simply cannot help yourself.
Tell us, Democrat, is it a lie that Trump said he would be deporting all these illegals on day one of his presidency?
No?
Ah, then who is the liar?
Is it not you and your leftist cohorts who behave as if these invaders were not warned months ago?
Why yes. Yes it is.
I’m sure that if I were a lawbreaker, I could get moved into a prison with even less notice than that.
We’re not talking about arresting someone. We’re talking about using the AEA to deport them. And the AEA explicitly requires adequate notice. You can’t deport an “enemy alien”, even if you’ve already established that he is one, without having first given him a reasonable time to leave on his own.
And no, first of all that notice certainly can’t be dated any earlier than when the president first invoked AEA. And second, the law says each person needs to have a chance to leave, so they do need to be given individual notice.
They do not have to purview to review his decision. This is getting absurd.
Getting?
Well earned up vote from me.
Where in the law does it say that?
Immigration courts have jurisdiction over matters concerning the removal of aliens, both legal and illegal. Congress bestowed this jurisdiction on these Article II courts to relieve the Art. III courts from the burden of hearing cases concerning said removals. Why are Art. III courts still entertaining them?
FIrst of all, this isn’t about immigration law, it’s about the Alien Enemies Act.
Second, Congress has no authority to deny anyone in the USA habeas corpus.
That is literally in the alien enemies act, the decision to remove are not justiceable.
Where in the AEA does it say that the determination that an invasion has occurred or is imminent is not justiciable?
That’s exactly right. The law gives the President, and only the president, the authority to declare a predatory incursion. It doesn’t say the AEA applies if the president declares a predatory invasion and the courts agree. The courts have no say in the matter. The people of the United States elected the president to make the decision of when a predator incursion occurred. It didn’t elect the judges. The judges have no say.
Why doesn’t Trump just tell the courts to take a hike. They have no jurisdiction in the matter because no one elected them. Why doesn’t he tell the courts that????
Where in the law does it say that?
Surprising but I’m afraid I missed it. Could someone remind me. When was this panel of 5th circuit judges made co-presidents and commanders in chief to defend the borders consistent with the constitution and delegated statutory power? Is that only this panel or the entire 5th circuit? Maybe all federal judges?
This panel, like all federal judges, was vested by the constitution with the judicial power, which is the power to interpret the law. The law requires an invasion; like any other term in any law, it’s an exercise of the judicial power to say what is an invasion.
Unless you can show me where in the law it says that the president has the sole and unreviewable power of making this determination, you’re just blowing hot air.
Congress wrote the law. Congress can say what is an “invasion.” If they didn’t define “invasion,” that should mean the executive can define the term, as it is the branch of government burdened with its execution.
Tell me – Did Hitler miss a trick? Could he have pushed Germans across the borders of European countries to change their demographics and politics instead of invading with armies? Would it have been any less an invasion for not being conducted with arms?
If they didn’t define “invasion,” that should mean the executive can define the term, That is the exact opposite of what the constitution says. Funny, do you take the same attitude to all statutes?! The executive can just interpret them as it likes, and act accordingly?! The constitution says the judicial power, i.e. the power to say what the law is, rests only in the courts and nowhere else. If a statute uses a term and there’s any doubt what it means, only the courts can say. Not even Congress can interpret existing statutes, though of course it can amend them for the future.
Where were they when BUYden opened the borders.
Hey… the law says (foreign nation) or (government) — not foreign (nation or government).
Joe Biden ran a government.
Joe Biden was responsible for “perpetrating” this “predatory incursion.”
That’s all Trump needs.
Cheering.
Where should they have been? How was that any of their concern? What power did they have to interfere?
so then what was the legality of the fjb admin for opening up the border and bypassing any laws that immigrants who enter legally must adhere to!!?
( just some of the requirements)
Attend an Interview
Applicants will attend an interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate, where they must provide documentation and answer questions about their application.
6. Receive a Decision
If approved, the applicant will receive an immigrant visa or adjustment of status, allowing them to become a lawful permanent resident (green card holder).
7. Maintain Status
LPRs must comply with U.S. laws and can apply for citizenship after a certain period, typically five years.
I suspect that one factor in this decision is Leftist envy of the current dictatorship in britain. And that they hope that the decision will help bring about similar conditions here.
Subotai Bahadur
If it does, they might get a dictatorship, but they won’t be the ones who own it.
This ruling will make no difference because illegal immigration is illegal. Did Eisenhower need to invoke the alien enemies act?
Eisenhower, like Truman before him who, IMO, doesn’t get enough notice/credit for his own large deportation effort, had the willing cooperation of State and local politicians and were assisted by State Local LEO without much interference by ankle biting activists, law fare or a Judiciary determined to oppose the effort. Plus the bulk were Mexicans being returned to a Mexican govt who wanted them back, demanded it in fact, to fill the job vacancies in their own post WWII industrial boom to fuel their economic growth.
If you provide the same conditions as Eisenhower operated under then this effort would run considerably smoother, more efficiently and much, much faster.
Eisenhower didn’t try to bypass the ordinary laws. Trump found what he thought was this loophole; invoke the AEA and just put the aliens on planes, no judicial review. Well, this panel is of the opinion that he misread the law. Now it will go en banc, or to SCOTUS. And of course it’s not binding in other circuits.
Bypass? 😂😂 He’s literally the only president in living memory attempting to protect the American people from the evils of Democrat incited illigal immigration.
Yes, bypass. That was the whole purpose of invoking the AEA.
Now this court has said he’s misreading it. We’ll see whether that is upheld on appeal.
b/c keeping america safe FOR criminals is job#1 for the lefty
The sinking of the boat may change this.
If Venezuela decides to start a war with the USA, then its citizens will definitely be alien enemies.
Even the civilians?
That’s the definition of enemy aliens.
That’s the basis on which we interned German, Italian, and Japanese citizens, and it wasn’t at all controversial. No one even bothered challenging it in court, because the law was right there, black on white. Only in the age of PC and over-sensitivity did Al D’Amato wring a false “apology” out of Congress, cynically comparing the interned Italians to the Americans of Japanese ancestry who were expelled from their homes and put in camps, something that was controversial then and is now pretty much universally condemned.
Yep. Not sure why this basic point is at all controversial. In a war/conflict with X then we don’t want the citizens/members of X running around loose in the USA.
See how the Democrat happily says ‘we’ when he invokes the internment of American citizens in Roosevelt’s concentration camps.
Yes, Democrat, that shame is indeed, yours.
No, Azathoth, you filthy disgusting liar and slanderer. They were not American citizens. They were enemy aliens and they were interned under the very same Act that Trump is using now. That’s why it was not controversial at the time, and Congress should never have apologized for it. And you remain a vile piece of slandering garbage.
“There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force.”
The Trump administration did make such an assessment. Does the court mean there has been no finding by a court? Because that is absolutely not required.
Never before has any court thought it could second guess the executive branch’s judgements about what constitutes a national security threat and what is necessary in response.
Looking forward to seeing this court’s bizarre rejection of all precedent being quickly overturned by SCOTUS.
There is one grounds on which executive branch assessments of what is required as a matter of national security can properly be reviewed and rejected by the courts: when they are seen to be in conflict with the guarantee of a republican form of government.
As the only guarantee in the entire constitution, the republican guarantee necessarily must take precedence over any and even all other constitutional requirements.
Unfortunately, this most powerfully written provision in the entire Constitution has been completely gutted by the Supreme Court on the ludicrous grounds that they claim not to know what republicanism is.
Hey Brennen, didn’t it occur to you that maybe you should have ASKED somebody?
For present purposes, it is enough to note that Trump’s invocation of the Enemy Aliens act is clearly protective of our republican form of government, and does not in any way undermine it.
An example of a national security claim that does threaten republicanism is when, under Biden (actually Obama’s third term), Director if National Security Jeh Johnson declared confidence in the honesty of our election systems to be “critical national security infrastructure,” allowing JoeBama’s Lavernty Beria Merrick Garland to classify as a terror threat anyone who pointed out the intentional vulnerability to mass vote fraud present in the mass mail-in voting schemes implemented by Democrats under cover of Covid.
Of course the actual national security interest is that we have full grounds to have confidence in our election systems, which requires full airing and investigation of all criticisms of our election systems.
Shutting down criticism was not protecting our republican form of government, it was weaponizing against the protectors, in order cover up usurpation.
This comes straight from what we actually do know about what republicanism is, according to the authors of our Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton, at the constitutional debates in New York: “the true principle of a republic is that the people shall choose who shall govern them. Representation is imperfect [Republicanism is imperfect], and proportion as the current popular favor is checked.”
The most obvious way that the current popular favor can be checked is if election systems lack integrity. If an election is stolen then the current popular favor is completely checked, and the government is at that point completely un republican, violating the republican guarantee in the most extreme possible way.
Ditto for weapon the powers of government against political opponents, subjecting them to unequal protection of the laws.
Ditto if their speech is suppressed, as with Joe Obama’s government orchestration of systematic suppression of all conservative speech, that was exposed with Elon’s take over of Twitter.
Lastly, note who is empowered to enforce the Article IV section 4 guarantee to each state that it shall have a republican form of government. This guarantee is to be enforced by “the United States,” which at the very least means all three branches of the federal government
Thus President Trump has his own independent and express power under the republican guarantee clause to assert and enforce any election system requirements that in his judgment are necessary in order to have a secure and honest election system.
I keep trying to tell people this, that President Trump absolutely does have his own independent power to require universal voter ID, and to limit mail-in voting only to the very limited number of cases where it is actually needed, etcetera.
He just needs to declare Article IV section 4 as his authority when he writes his executive orders asserting necessary election security requirements.
Then he would be empowered, not just to withhold federal funding from states that violate these requirements, he could send in the military and directly force them to run their elections in accordance with republican requirements.
Not that he would need to do that, but he could, and the Supreme Court would have to presumptively defer to him.
Why? Because when SCOTUS declared that it didn’t know what republicanism is, it declared that it had to defer to the political branches on what republicanism is, and leave it to them to enforce the republican guarantee as they see fit.
As far as current precedent is concerned, the court has no say in the matter unless Congress takes a different view, in which case the court would be called upon to mediate between the different views of the two political branches.
That ultra-differential Supreme Court stance is of course incorrect. All three branches of the federal government are called upon to do their part to uphold the guarantee of republican form of government. SCOTUS cannot abdicate this responsibility.
But this is where current Supreme Court president stands, which is very advantageous for the president.
I hope some people will please help me tell our great President Trump at all he has to do is cite the republican guarantee as an authority, and his own independent and express power to demand every requirement for honest elections will be recognized by the courts.
Democrats will sue, the Supreme Court will take it up, and they will be forced to admit: “oh yeah, it looks like we overlooked that definition of republicanism that Alexander Hamilton provided at the constitutional debates, therefore we rule for President Trump and acknowledge the presidential powers that he is asserting here.”
Says who?
This is not about national security threats, it’s about a specific term in a specific statute. Unless the statute says otherwise, which it doesn’t, it’s the courts who define such terms.
Really, false lawyer?
You’respobse to that well thought out and written comment is ‘says who?’?
Can you become any more pathetic?
Yes, demon from Hell, servant of the Prince of Lies. Really. An assertion without any basis deserves nothing better than “Says who?”.
Sad child
Forever in a tantrum.
We should just hang them. Why go through all the trouble and expense to deport them?
Hang them until they are dead, dead, dead.
SCOTUS invented the 24 hour wait to allow habeas corpus when they overturned Judge Boasberg in the “Maryland Man” case.
There was nothing in the statute that required it. At first, I was upset because it seemed likely to scuttle the whole point of invoking the paw – quick deportations of the worst terrorists – by imposing a substantial wait while each appealed their deportation.
But, I later found out tgat the language SCOTUS used was actually common and well settled in imposing a mere 24 hour wait AND those being deported weren’t being given full trials to challenge the deportation but merely an opportunity to file habeas corpus – which they very rarely try to do (<1%) and which federal district courts refuse to hear 97% of the time.
Also, there’s multiple options in the Alien Enemies Act under which a POTUS can invoke it. Read it, the last is pretty broad. And, in the SCOTUS vacature of Boasberg’s ruling, they acknowledged that deportations under the Act were valid – subject only to their newly invented requirement noted above.
The Act gives POTUS authority to invoke it. Period. The notion that the courts can override his declaration seems very far fetched. Given that SCOTUS already specifically allowed the use of this in an essentially similar case, I’d vet this robed political activist’s opinion gets flushed entirely on appeal.
So far this year, of the cases fully resolved, this administration is batting just under 1.000. There was one that they lost at the district court level and didn’t bother to appeal. All the rest are either stilm in the works or have been won.
Being patient and NOT ignoring adverse judgements has really paid off. They are setting a very large number of good precedents.
The statute explicitly requires enemy aliens to be given adequate notice before deportation. Not so they can apply for habeas, because that’s only for those under arrest. They need notice so they can arrange their affairs and leave on their own to avoid expulsion. They need to see about their jobs, their homes, their kids’ schools, pack and ship their furniture, buy tickets, etc.
The “Time allowed to settle affairs” section ONLY gives time if required by Treaty between the US and the alien’s home nation.
If no Treaty exists with such requirement, POTUS has sole authority IF he wants to give such time or not. He “MAY” grant whatever time he chooses. Or not. Entirely at the President’s discretion.
SCOTUS usurped this in the opinion they issued in the Boasberg case. As noted above, based on nothing. They invented a requirement of 24 hour delay and imposed that unilaterally.
What this current judge is entirely inconsistent with the statute and also inconsistent with what SCOTUS has already done just this year in a similar case.
Bonus: SCOTUS has ruled on, and upheld, this Act when it was invoked by previous Presidents as well.
In a few weeks, this garbage opinion by yet another robed political activist will be tossed in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Don’t bother.
He hasn’t read the act, he only puts forward the talking points given to him with a flourish of feigned intelligence.
Says the evil slanderer. Nothing Azathoth says can be believed. Nothing at all.
Nothing Azathoth says HAS to be ‘believed’.
It can be checked through simple googling.
That’s why your first response to anything anyone says that refutes your endless demoralizing propaganda is ‘LIES!’.
You hope to muddy the clear waters with your filth.
Not true at all. You have clearly not bothered to read what I cited.
Reasonable time is always and absolutely required.
If there is a treaty specifying how much time, then that prevails. If there’s no such treaty then the president decides how much time is reasonable; but it has to actually be reasonable.
That was nothing to do with this requirement. That was to give time for a Habeas petition, which is an absolute constitutional right for anyone in custody under US jurisdiction. No law can deprive someone of that right.
Even people who are not entitled to habeas, such as prisoners of war, are still entitled to a hearing on whether they are in fact such. The government can’t just say they’re POWs; if they say they’re not, they’re entitled to a hearing before a competent tribunal to determine the facts. If the tribunal decides they are POWs, then that’s the end of the inquiry, because it’s already established law that POWs are not entitled to habeas. If it decides they’re not POWs, then they go on to a full habeas hearing, at which the government must justify why it is holding them.
How about just illegal invaders who need to get thrown out just because of that?
Then you need to go through the ordinary processes of immigration law and habeas corpus. The president invoked AEA specifically to bypass that. This decision is only about that invocation and nothing else.