While less sweeping than the one invalidated by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara, it still denies birthright citizenship to many people protected by the earlier Supreme Court decision.
It is now available on SSRN. This revision adds additional points, and takes account of various recent events.
The proposal was nixed only after White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf explained why it was legally dubious.
The president has repeatedly argued that courts have no business deciding whether his actions are legal.
The president says federal courts should not make decisions based on partisan considerations unless it benefits him.
His work further demonstrates that the AEA cannot be used in response to illegal migration or drug smuggling, but only when there is a military attack.
The president's wildly inaccurate ideological labels are no more meaningful than his other ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with him.
Steve Twist and I propose increasing involvement by crime victims as a way to reduce politicization of criminal justice processes.
It is now up on SSRN, and also under submission to law reviews.
In a crucial appellate court oral argument, the Trump Administration admits that their position says the answer is "yes." The exchange highlights the dangers of judicial deference on judicial invocation of extraordinary emergency powers.
That embarrassing mistake highlights the slipperiness of Trump's attempts to justify legally dubious policies by invoking the specter of "foreign terrorist organizations."
It is now available on SSRN. The revision adds additional evidence, and takes account of various recent events, including Trump's military intervention in Venezuela.
Maduro is a brutal dictator who is getting what he deserves. But Trump's actions are still illegal, because lacking proper congressional authorization. Whether they result in a beneficial regime change in Venezuela remains to be seen.
The president asserted broad powers to deport people, impose tariffs, and deploy the National Guard based on his own unilateral determinations.
I coauthored the brief on behalf of the the Cato Institute, the Brennan Center for Justice, legal scholars Geoffrey Corn and John Dehn, and myself.
The Trump administration's claims that illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion" or a "predatory incursion" under the Alien Enemies Act go against the major questions doctrine.
It will review a panel decision holding that Trump could not invoke this sweeping wartime authority by claiming illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion."
The 2-1 ruling is in line with most previous court decisions on Trump's invocation of the AEA. Judge Oldham wrote an extremely long, but significantly flawed, dissent.
The appeals court blocked the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members under that law "because we find no invasion or predatory incursion."
Judge Katsas and Judge Rao disagreed on the reasons, but both agreed that Judge Boasberg overstepped; Judge Pillard dissented.
It makes the case for strong judicial review of executive invocations of sweeping emergency powers.
The Trump administration cut a deal with Venezuela to return a triple murderer to American shores while it tries to deport someone accused of much less.
After being ilegally deported and imprisoned in El Salvador, they will now be sent back to the oppressive regime they fled in the first place, in exchange for ten Americans detained by the Venezuelan government.
Academics are supposed to discover nonobvious, counterintituitive truths. But, especially in recent years, much of my work involves defending positions that seem obvious to most laypeople, even though many experts deny them.
Katherine Yon Ebright and Leah Tulin of the Brennan Center make the case against judicial deference to Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
But, notably, the court chose not to rule on the issue of what qualifies as an "invasion."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is considering whether the president properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members.
The ruling includes no analysis. Justice Sotomayor's dissent has a compelling explanation of why it is wrong.
Trump's policy here is yet another example of abusive invocation of emergency powers.
The border is no longer the focus. Now, the White House wants you to believe that the crisis extends to nail salons, hardware stores, farms, and restaurants across the country.
The article describes how the two can be mutually reinforcing, building on lessons from previous episodes in constitutional history.
The Trump Administration returned the illegally deported migrant from imprisonment in El Salvador after repeatedly claiming they could not do so.
Without such intervention, he warns, the government "could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action."
The brief was filed on behalf of the Brennan Center, the Cato Institute, law-of-war scholar Prof. John Dehn, and myself.
Father of the Constitution James Madison made a distinction between alien enemies and alien friends.
Legal scholar Rebecca Ingber offers some strong arguments against deference in this context.
"It's not just one or two administrative errors," says the Cato Institute's David Bier.
A new Cato Institute study by David Bier presents the most extensive available evidence on these points.
Stephen Miller's trial balloon about abrogating habeas corpus in immigration cases shows how any libertarian with pragmatic intelligence should reject so-called "libertarian" arguments for strict immigration laws.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Court ruled Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act cannot supersede a settlement barring deportation of a group of migrants. One judge also held the AEA was invoked illegally.
Kovarsky and Rave defend the use of class actions in AEA habeas cases. Vladeck highlights the significance of the Supreme Court's grant of an injunction to a "putative class" of AEA detainees.
The ruling held that migrants detained under AEA had not been given adequate notice of their potential deportation. It also reflects the Court's growing distrust of the Trump Administration.
A majority of the justices seem unconvinced the Administration was prepared to provide the process that was due. Justices Alito and Thomas dissent.
The article explains why these claims to emergency powers are illegal and dangerous, and how to stop them.
In a badly flawed decision, a federal district court ruled that Trump can invoke the AEA because the Tren de Aragua drug gang's activities amount to a "predatory incursion."
The court instituted a preliminary injunction against the Administration's use of the Act to deport Venezuelans.
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.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
