Trump admits he could return migrant illegally deported to El Salvador. And an intelligence community report concludes the Tren de Aragua drug gang isn't controlled by the Venezuelan government.
The Southern District of New York rules Trump invoked the Act illegally, because there is no "invasion" or "predatory incursion."
Federal district court Judge Fernando Rodriguez ruled that Trump invoked the AEA illegally, and that migrants threatened with deportation under the Act can file class action habeas petitions.
I was one of 35 legal scholars who took part.
The degree of agreement among participants with major ideological diferences is striking.
The order temporarily blocks AEA deportations. It likely also reflects the Court's growing frustration with the Trump Administration.
This case has crucial implications for the ability of migrants to effectively challenge illegal AEA deportations.
The Supreme Court oveturns lower court decisions temporarily barring AEA deportations, but also emphasizes that detainees are entitled to due process, and that AEA deportations are subject to judicial review.
A leading expert on habeas corpus explains why the Trump Administration is wrong to claim the case must be heard in Texas, rather than Washington, DC.
The 2-1 ruling is procedural, but strongly suggests the majority judges also reject the Trump administration's position on the merits.
Judge Boasberg ruled the migrants are entitled to due process in determing whether they really are "alien enemies" covered by the Act.
Links to audios of a Cato Institute podcast and an interview with ABC News (Australia).
The participants were Adam Cox (NYU) and myself.
The people deported are incarcerated in Salvadoran prisons without any due process whatsoever.
They used the Act to deport some 137 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador even after a federal court issued a temporary restraining order blocking such action.
The article is coauthored with Cato Institute scholar David Bier.
His apparent plan to do so is illegal and would set a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand.
The article explains why the order is unconstitutional and why letting it stand would be very dangerous, including for the civil liberties of US citizens.
Legal scholar Michael Ramsey points out another way courts could reject Trump's plan to use the act as a tool for peacetime mass deportation.
The plan is illegal. But courts might refuse to strike it down based on the "political questions" doctrine.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
