Talk about a judicial plot twist!
For the last several weeks, it seemed as though every federal court under the sun was intent on thwarting the Trump administration’s efforts to remove illegal migrants – in particular violent migrants – from the United States.
In particular federal courts filled with judges backed by Obama.
While Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to justify the forcible removal of numerous Venezuelan migrants, a number of organizations swiftly became involved in the deportation proceedings.
The ACLU, for instance, was sure to show up in multiple courts with multiple lawsuits, arguing valiantly in favor of illegal migrants remaining in the nation.
Whether or not the ACLU was largely arguing for due process or not remains murky, but it is safe to say that the optics of defending violent gang members illegally present in the nation are not ideal.
And while multiple judges have largely sided against Trump thus far, it would appear that one of Trump’s own judges has provided tacit approval for his use of the Alien Enemies Act for removing violent migrants.
According to a report from The Hill, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines recently ruled that President Trump can, after all, invoke the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for purposes of removing Tren de Aragua members.
“The Court recognizes that it may need to conduct further analysis and consider additional issues related to the specifics of notice in the future …However, at this preliminary stage of this case, the Court finds that the foregoing is appropriate and complies with the law,” Haines
However, Haines added that the Trump administration has generally provided insufficient notice prior to carrying out the deportations.
The written decision in its entirety may be reviewed here.
Haines’s ruling provides a dramatic contrast with numerous other federal judges, who have summarily ruled that Trump illegally invoked the wartime statue.
For instance, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. was rather dubious about the use of the Alien Enemies Act, arguing that Venezuela is not attempting to conquer the United States via its migrants.
“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,” Rodriguez raged.
Hm, fair point.
Though an argument could be made that China is attempting to invade the United States with its rampant fentanyl production, which just happens to be frequently transported via mass illegal migration.
Regardless, it is clear that the Trump administration has finally achieved a victory following substantial judicial pushback.
Time remains to tell how Haines’s ruling will affect the rulings of others …
Author: Jane Jones
