Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump's Use of 1798 Law for Deportations
A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision blocking the Trump administration’s use of a 1798 wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged gang members.
In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration, a federal appellate court has declined to stay a lower court’s orders that prevent the deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The decision, reached by a 2-1 vote from a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, reinforces the ongoing legal battle over the administration’s immigration policies.
The court’s ruling came after intense oral arguments where the administration’s authority to use the wartime law for deportations was heavily scrutinized. Judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Justin Walker heard the case on an expedited basis, with Judge Millett, an Obama appointee, appearing to favor the plaintiffs. The debate centered on whether the Trump administration complied with constitutional due process protections, particularly in providing adequate time for the affected individuals to seek legal remedies.
Judge Henderson, in her concurring opinion, emphasized the preliminary nature of the government’s case, stating, “At this early stage, the government has yet to show a likelihood of success on the merits.” The decision maintains the temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who had criticized the administration for not being forthcoming with information related to the deportation flights.
The Trump administration’s attempt to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, under the Alien Enemies Act has sparked controversy and legal challenges. Attorney General Pam Bondi has expressed strong opposition to the judicial interference in immigration matters, hinting at a possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
This ruling underscores the tensions between executive authority and judicial oversight in immigration policy, highlighting the complexities of using historical laws in modern contexts. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court, as the administration seeks to assert its authority in immigration enforcement.