Worthy Christian News > US News > Federal Judge Upholds Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act for Gang Member Deportations, But Demands Due Process Protections

Federal Judge Upholds Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act for Gang Member Deportations, But Demands Due Process Protections

by Emmitt Barry, Worthy News Correspondent

(Worthy News) – A federal judge on Tuesday upheld the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan nationals affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang, designating them as members of a “foreign terrorist organization.” However, the judge also ruled that the administration has failed to provide adequate notice to those subject to deportation under the statute.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee, issued a 43-page decision that marks a legal victory for the administration’s effort to invoke the 18th-century wartime law to carry out removals of criminal non-citizens. But the ruling also imposes limitations, requiring that those targeted under the law receive at least 21 days notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.

“This case poses significant issues that are deeply interwoven with the constitutional principles upon which this Nation’s government is founded,” Haines wrote. “In approaching these issues, the Court begins by stressing the questions that it is not resolving at this time.”

The decision contrasts with recent rulings by other federal judges in Texas and New York, who found that the administration’s use of the AEA exceeded its legal authority.

“The question that this lawsuit presents is whether the President can utilize a specific statute, the AEA, to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of [Tren de Aragua],” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., another Trump appointee in Texas. “As to that question, 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.”

In contrast, Judge Haines concluded that Trump’s March 14 executive order, “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua,” was lawful under the AEA, but lacked proper procedural safeguards.

“Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will,” Haines wrote.

The ruling applies to Venezuelan nationals who are not naturalized or lawful permanent residents, are 14 years or older, and have been specifically designated as members of Tren de Aragua — which Secretary of State Marco Rubio labeled as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Haines noted that the government’s filings provided a “factual basis” for the President’s conclusions and said the gang’s actions meet the AEA’s definition of a “predatory incursion.”

She added that the court would afford “substantial deference to the conclusion” that Tren de Aragua is “acting at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.”

“It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held in secret,” Haines wrote.

Still, the court ruled the petitioner in the case — a Venezuelan man identified as A.S.R. held in ICE custody — cannot be deported unless he is provided a written notice in both English and Spanish, at least 21 days in advance, clearly stating he is subject to removal under the AEA and given an opportunity to be heard.

“The court properly rejected the government’s argument that they can remove people with only 12 hours’ notice,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “But we disagree with the court’s ruling that the Alien Enemies Act can be used during peacetime.”

In conclusion, Haines reiterated the court’s limited role.

“In resolving those issues, this Court’s unflagging obligation is to apply the law as written,” she stated. “The court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will.”