Legal Challenges Arise Against Trump’s Invocation of Alien Enemies Act

President Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to target members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, labeling them as a foreign terrorist organization. This unprecedented move has prompted a lawsuit from the ACLU, arguing that it bypasses lawful deportation processes and violates individual rights. A federal judge has temporarily halted deportations related to this proclamation, amid concerns about its legality and implications for immigration law.

On Saturday, President Trump issued a proclamation aimed at a significant crackdown on members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA). The proclamation mandated the immediate apprehension and deportation of Venezuelan nationals linked to TdA, labeling the group as a “designated Foreign Terrorist Organization” involved in an “invasion” and “irregular warfare” on American soil. The President’s statement claimed that “evidence irrefutably demonstrates that TdA has invaded the United States and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country,” citing crimes such as kidnappings and drug trafficking.

This invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) marks an unprecedented action, as it occurs without a formal declaration of war or recognition of foreign aggression. Historically, the AEA has rarely been applied, primarily against British nationals during the War of 1812 and during World Wars I and II against Japanese and German individuals. The statute allows the president significant authority to detain and deport individuals from enemy nations during wartime.

Shortly after the proclamation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward Foundation filed a lawsuit, accompanied by an emergency application for a temporary restraining order. The legal action represents five Venezuelan individuals, protected by pseudonyms to safeguard their identities, who argue potential deportation could lead to imprisonment or torture. They assert that the invocation of the AEA during peacetime exceeds presidential authority and violates various rights.

The lawsuit contends that invoking the AEA bypasses traditional deportation processes improperly, arguing violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), due process under the Fifth Amendment, and obligations to protect asylum seekers under the Convention Against Torture. The plaintiffs emphasized, “The United States is not in a declared war with Venezuela,” arguing that it cannot declare war against TdA or Venezuela, nor state a legitimate invasion.

US District Chief Judge James Boasberg granted a two-week restraining order in a virtual hearing, thereby preventing immigration officials from removing specific Venezuelan nationals identified in the lawsuit. Immigration officials are barred from deporting these individuals during this period, based on the AEA.

Critics have characterized the proclamation as a “dangerous overreach,” undermining the checks and balances of immigration law. Arthur Spitzer, an attorney for the ACLU, stated, “There is no foreign military action to justify President Trump’s intended invocation of this act, making his actions not only unlawful but an outright assault on fundamental rights.”

The proclamation by President Trump has incited immediate legal challenges based on its unprecedented invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime. Legal opposition centers around the assertion that such action contravenes established rights and procedures, with critics highlighting potential violations of fundamental protective statutes. The situation reveals ongoing tensions between national security measures and the protection of individual rights in the face of evolving threats.

Original Source: www.jurist.org