A Trump-appointed Texas District judge wisely rules against Trump.
Using Wartime Powers to Deport Venezuelans Is Unlawful
The Wall Street Journal reports Judge Rules Trump’s Use of Wartime Powers to Deport Venezuelans Was Unlawful
Key Points
- Judge rules Trump’s use of Alien Enemies Act to detain alleged gang members was unlawful.
- The judge found that the presence of Tren de Aragua members didn’t constitute an “invasion”.
- The Supreme Court has confirmed those designated as alien enemies are entitled to challenge deportations.
Court Ruling
Please note Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Rules Against Trump using Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants.
Petitioners argue that the proper construction of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” reveals that the Proclamation does not satisfy the conditions required to invoke the statute. They highlight that Congress enacted the AEA as a war time measure, and that “Congress understood [‘invasion’ and ‘predatory incursion’] to mean a military incursion into the territory of the United States.” (PI Mot., Doc. 42, 22) In support of this reading, they rely on various dictionary definitions and historical sources that use those terms in a military context. (Id. at 22–23) They also note, accurately, that no President has invoked the AEA other than during a time of war, including the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Based on their proposed construction, they argue that the conduct by TdA and Venezuela as described in the Proclamation does not arise to an invasion or predatory incursion because it does not entail a military action, either actual or threatened, against the nation. (See Reply, Doc. 47, 11 (proposing that Congress limited the AEA “to instances of war or imminent war by a foreign nation or government”))
Political Question
The Respondents contend first that the “President’s authority and discretion under the AEA is not a proper subject for judicial scrutiny.” (Resp., Doc. 45, 20) Relatedly, they claim that “[w]hether the AEA’s preconditions are satisfied is a political question committed to the President’s discretion[.]” (Id. at 21) In both instances, they rely on substantial caselaw describing the broad powers that the AEA places in the President.
The Supreme Court in J.G.G. confirmed that “questions of interpretation” fall within the Judiciary’s responsibility. This role is not surprising, given that whether a government actor’s “interpretation of [a] statute is correct . . . is a familiar judicial exercise.” Zivotofsky, 566 U.S. at 196; see also Japan Whaling Ass’n v. American Cetacean Soc’y, 106 U.S. 2860, 2866 (1986) (“[I]t goes without saying that interpreting congressional legislation is a recurring and accepted task for the federal courts.”).
The Constitution itself references “invasion” on two occasions, each time in a military context. In Article IV, Section 4, the Constitution requires the United States to “protect each of [the states] against Invasion.” At least one court has concluded that “invasion” under this provision requires “armed hostilities” and does not include mass immigration. Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23, 28 (2d Cir. 1996) (“In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government.”). Also, Article I, Section 9 prohibits Congress from suspending the writ of habeas corpus, “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
While the Proclamation references that TdA members have harmed lives in the United States and engage in crime, the Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack, or that Venezuela has threatened or attempted such an attack through TdA members. As a result, the Proclamation also falls short of describing a “predatory incursion” as that concept was understood at the time of the AEA’s enactment.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful. Respondents do not possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country.
An Activist Trump
I applaud the ruling. Everyone should applaud the ruling because it is idiotic to suggest there is a foreign invasion of the US.
The bigots and cultists will scream about an activist judge, when once again the problem is an activist Trump.
Notice that the Judge made no ruling about whether Petitioners J.A.V., J.G.G., and W.G.H. are gang members.
It’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the absurd way Trump has gone about his policies. The War Powers Act and ending Birthright Citizenship by decree are Trumpian activism on steroids.
Judge Rodriguez gave Trump another well-deserved slap in the face. That’s worth cheering.
And I cheered when the courts smacked Biden as well. I am tired of activism under both Trump and Biden. Being against Left and Right activism puts me in a distinct minority.
I look forward to the courts ending Biden’s and California’s energy activism.
For discussion of Birthright Citizenship, please see Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order