The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump May Soon Try to Use the Alien Enemies Act as a Tool for Deportation
His apparent plan to do so is illegal and would set a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand.

Media reports indicate the Trump Administration may be about to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as a tool to facilitate deportation:
The Trump administration is expected to invoke a sweeping wartime authority to speed up the president's mass deportation pledge in the coming days, according to four sources familiar with the discussions.
The little-known 18th-century law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, gives the president tremendous authority to target and remove undocumented immigrants, though legal experts have argued it would face an uphill battle in court.
CNN previously reported that the authority was being widely discussed at several agencies as administration officials prepared to implement the law. The primary target remains Tren de Aragua (TDA), a Venezuelan organized crime group that is now operating in the United States and other countries….
Trump had ordered his administration to designate TDA as a foreign terrorist organization and use the measure to remove those identified.
The announcement, which could come as soon as Friday, has been a moving target as officials finalize the details. The move would likely pave the way for quicker removals of certain immigrants.
I have previously written about why such a use of the Alien Enemies Act would be both illegal and set a dangerous precedent here and here.
The Act is the only part of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that remains on the books. If courts let the Administration use it, they could potentially detain and deport even legal immigrants with little or no due process. However, the Act can only be used in the event of a declared war, or an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" perpetrated by a "foreign nation or government." As explained in my earlier writings about this issue, illegal migration and cross-border drug smuggling do not qualify as an "invasion" or "predatory incursion." Even if they did, they aren't being perpetrated by a "foreign nation or government." Tren de Aragua and other organized crime groups engaged in drug smuggling are pretty obviously not nations or governments.
I previously wrote about why drug cartel activities don't qualify as an "invasion" here:
The Administration uses the involvement of cartels in cross-border drug trade to buttress their position. But the fact that some cross-border smuggling is conducted by organized crime does not make it the equivalent of an armed attack. Otherwise, the United States was constantly under "invasion" under Prohibition, when armed organized crime organizations smuggled illegal alcoholic beverages across the Canadian border. Smuggling by organized crime groups is a virtually inevitable consequence of prohibition regimes, whether for alcohol in the Prohibition era or drugs today. By this theory, there is a constant, never-ending state of "invasion."
If illegal migration and drug smuggling do qualify as an "invasion," there would be dire implications that go far beyond immigration issues. States would be authorized to "engage in war" in response (even without congressional authorization), and the federal government would empowered to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and thereby detain people - including US citizens - without charges or trial.
If Trump does try to use the Alien Enemies Act as a tool for deportation, courts should strike it down.
For more on the Alien Enemies Act, see this helpful analysis by Katherine Yon Ebright of the Brennan Center.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"If Trump does try to use the Alien Enemies Act as a tool for deportation, courts should strike it down."
Is there anything courts can't do?
I like how Ilya acts like the only option to drug cartels invading and killing our citizens is full 3rd Reich or doing nothing and we can't work out an appropriate intermediate solution. Its just nonstop whining without any offered solutions except full uncontrolled open borders.
"Why won't people offer solutions to my made up problems?"
You're saying the Drug cartels and killings and the deaths from the drugs they import don't exist?
Not related to the problem of incoming migrants.
Border guards can be in two places at the same time?
When they're fishing children out of the river so they don't drown, they aren't a mile downstream where the boat comes up and drops off the load to the pickup truck, which quickly departs.
'the cartels and illegals have nothing to do with each other.'
Way to display your staggering ignorance without outright saying it. LOL
Don't forget the Dogs! They're eating the Dogs! They're eating the Cats!
If the law is so bad, why hasn't it been repealed sometime in the past 228 years?!?
Because we need more tools for deporting enemy aliens. Too bad Somin cannot be deported under this law.
Because it's not so bad, FDR used it in the last Wah that we actually won.
But that was Different because FDR was Different.
Since when in the last 228 years has Congress been interested in repealing disused laws?
I don’t see anything from Prof. Somin saying the law is bad. I do see him saying that Trump’s proposed actions aren’t authorized by the law.
Prof. Somin is just speculating that Trump might do something Somin doesn't like using the founding era law as justification. There is no actual proposal that involves that law.
Did you read the post before commenting?
Why waste time and energy on repealing something that has virtually always been viewed with deep suspicion? That no one now living has viewed as anything other than vestigial, like our appendix? That hasn't been invoked since World War II, when there was a real declared war going on? At that time, of course, thousands of Nisei were rounded up and interned, actions universally condemned as a gross injustice and a permanent stain on the otherwise beautiful legacy of FDR.
If you passed middle school biology classes, you surely know that even though it's vestigial we don't remove someone's appendix unless he/she (only two, right? so an attaboy for me) will die if we don't. I'm sure you're aware that there are many US towns and cities still having laws against spitting on the sidewalk. Such laws look and usually are stupid. Maybe we could set Musk, Inc. to ferreting out and chopping up all the obsolete laws and rules still on the books someplace. That would be aces with me.
If you were going to repeal something that old, it would be the Logan act. The Alien Enemies act has been used repeatedly, the Logan act has never been prosecuted, just waved around as a threat.
Here's a potential solution that would solve the immigration issue, and it would be right up Trump's alley. Instead of Trump pressuring Canada to become the 51st state, Trump could pressure Mexico to become the 51st state instead. After which, there would no invasion by definition. The Belize and Guatemala borders with Mexico (or with the US, once Mexico becomes the 51st state) are much smaller and easier to defend.
I like how AmosArch acts like the only option to dealing with organized crime is deporting people without due process.
But the fact that some cross-border smuggling is conducted by organized crime does not make it the equivalent of an armed attack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree....the armed attacks make it the equivalent of an armed attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I Tren de Aragua and other organized crime groups engaged in drug smuggling are pretty obviously not nations or governments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I guess if a drug cartel is shooting at you its no big deal because its not a nation or government. When the Communists or any rebel movement rises up its no big deal because they're not really nations or governments and nobody's under any threat whatsoever because you're incapable of invading anything if you're not an official government or nation.
It certainly is a big deal. It’s just not a big deal that implicates the Alien Enemies Act, because that is expressly confined to actions by nations and governments. If you don’t like it, write your congressman.
…which doesn't happen because I don't live in an episode of Breaking Bad.
Perhaps more importantly, because you live out in the Jersey 'burbs far away from any locus of profitable cartel activity.
Uh cartel and foreign national border related shootings and violence against citizens is actually practically routine. Recently Texas had to clear out a cartel controlled island on American soil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbr_pz0pzeI
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/operation-lone-star-secures-fronton-island-from-mexican-cartels
Just because you don't hear it on MSNBC doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The silly gubernatorial press release headline makes it sound like Texas sent in armed troops to fight a gun battle to defeat a cartel army or something. In fact, the island was not "cartel controlled," and all Texas did was put some barbed wire up.
Welcome to the Rule of
LawMen, Prof Somin, where laws are interpreted by Men and mean whatever the current King's Men say they mean.Volokh is as bad as Reason on these things.
Pick the least outrageous government excess to complain about.
Trump is using a sketchy legal theory to deport Venezuelan gang members. Oh no!
Can we not pick examples of bad things happening to good people?
Ever here that "First they cam for" bit of verse?
You might find it enlightening.
Rules matter.
The problem with the Niemöller passage is that it didn't apply to the Jan 6th Cadre. There wasn't a scintilla of fairness or due process accorded them -- and that people like Gaslighto didn't speak up for them.
So why should we speak up for Gaslighto?
If the shoe was on the other foot, you know damn well they'd be booting every one of our people on pretexts. So here, where their people HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THINGS, why should we be concerned with legal niceties?
The middle has ceased to hold.
They got every bit of due process that the U.S. Constitution provides for, you retard.
The problem with the Niemöller passage is that it didn't apply to the Jan 6th Cadre. There wasn't a scintilla of fairness or due process accorded them -- and that people like Gaslighto didn't speak up for them.
There were literally still members going through the courts when Trump issued pardons.
People who had literally forced their way into the Capitol in order to install their favoured candidate by force.
Except they had no desire for that to happen nor did they make any moves to do so.
It was a protest. Something you support...but only if a progressive does it.
Sure, a protest where they broke into the Capitol in order to install their favoured candidate by force.
Ew! Ew! Ew, Mis-tuh Kot-Tear, you made a grammar error!!!!
It's "Hear", not "Here"
and it's "came" not "cam" (although the German form is "kam" so you're at least mangling bilingually)
at least when I molest the Engrish Language, it's not my mother tongue (Love my Mother Tongue, what?) what's your excuse?
Frank
Notice the first sentence in his panic porn piece:
Media reports indicate....(insert link to CNN)....
Yup. Ilya is now Joy(less) Reid, Jim Acosta, Don Lemon rolled into one. Vokokh must be desperate for web traffic...just like CNN.
Without due process it is almost certain they will deport non-gang members.
So what?
They not only arrested but convicted innocent Jan 6th people -- innocent in all they did was obey a uniformed officer's instruction/permission to enter the building.
Hence Molly, it sucks to be them.
I know, it was hilariousness. Normal Trump supporting Americans just visiting the Capital for the day and the Ds spun the whole thing into an "attempted coup". The best part is when Ashli was killed for doing nothing more than going though a door and then claimed it was "defending Congress members from a mob". We have hundreds of hours of video of the whole thing and no where did the visitors engage in any type of violence. Rs think they have good propaganda media, lol no, the Ds are so much better because they could pull off such a massive deception on half the public.
Oh come on.
There were hundreds of people who did none of those things suffering for years in your gulags.
Molly, was the building still standing afterwards?
And the thing with Ashli, that was a neck shot, very easy to miss, and had he missed, he likely would have hit one of the three officers standing behind her... There's a saying -- "friendly fire isn't."
Most, but not all of the windows had been replaced with a blast-proof non-breakable glass substitute, probably Lexan. Did you know which windows were still glass and hence could be broken? (I didn't/don't.) Ever wonder HOW the people breaking them knew they would break?
Molly, how do you know which windows would break unless someone told you, and who would know that? Might they work for the government?
Remember that the British tried to burn the building down in 1814, and would have been successful but for an August thunderstorm (DC has impressive thunderstorms...)
The lower level Capital windows were just normal or safety glass, quite breakable. It really hurts your argument when your facts are wrong.
According to the LA Times, YOU are wrong -- it was only a "dozen or so ground-floor windows and glass-paned doors that had not been recently reinforced. The majority of the Capitol’s 658 single-pane windows" had been.
"Video shows some of the first rioters to break through the police line running past 15 reinforced windows, making a beeline for a recessed area on the Senate side of the building, where two unreinforced windows and two doors with unreinforced glass were all that stood between them and hallways leading to lawmakers inside who had not begun to evacuate."
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-10-04/jan-6-rioters-exploited-little-known-capitol-weak-spots-a-handful-of-unreinforced-windows
Yeah, I was kind of shocked that they didn't at least have that wire mesh reenforced glass. It being the Capitol and their own security, I'm actually a little surprised all the windows aren't ALON; It's their safety and other people's money, after all.
“Innocent”
“The fascist-style martyrdom cult justifies violence, in two ways. It makes a hero of criminals, thereby making criminality exemplary.”
“Hence”
“And it establishes prior innocence -- we suffered first, and therefore anything we do to make others suffer will always be justified.”
Where I am from, if you follow the instructions of a uniformed officer, you ARE innocent.
If the officer is out to lunch, that's the Chief's problem, not yours.
“follow the instructions”
I too would like to see your best example of this!
There's video of uniformed cops holding the door open for people.
Sure, they weren't supposed to do it -- but that's the Chief's problem.
“There’s video”
Oh is there?
We know the Shaman was escorted around the Capitol. So, yes.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that this were actually true. How would that constitute "instructions" to enter the building?
What’s one of the best examples of that, in your opinion?
If they're not legal, why would I give a damn?
"Even if they did, they aren't being perpetrated by a "foreign nation or government.""
I think that you're a little bit in denial about how little breathing room there is between the cartels and some governments South of the US at this point.
"If courts let the Administration use it, they could potentially detain and deport even legal immigrants with little or no due process. "
No one is shocked where you came out on this Brett. But you should be ashamed at how predictably anti-liberty you are.
And you should be ashamed at how incredibly ignorant you are. But life goes on.
And Gaslighto somehow things that we should care about how easy it is to boot even lawful immigrants. That ship sailed on Jan 7th.
You're trying to shame him into self-censoring.
You should reflect upon your lack of morals and integrity.
Brett, it says "foreign nation OR government" -- and "nation" has included a group of people, independent of national status. And NGOs are increasingly viewed as state actors -- hence why wouldn't a designated terrorist NGO constitute a "nation" here?
Look at Mr. Snowplow pretending he cares about laws.
Dr. Snowplow really doesn't anymore...
Dr. Snowplow has seen the left do too many things...
It has not.
They are not.
Given how many are heavily funded by the US government, they are certainly not NON-GOVERNMENTAL.
Oh, this is the worst-looking Post I ever saw. What, when you submit a Post like this I bet you get a free bowl of soup, huh? Oh, it looks good on you though!
The president's power to 'recognize' foreign governments is incredibly broad. I'm not seeing a reason why he couldn't just 'recognize' any foreign cartel he wanted as a 'government', and then say that the government in question was waging war against the USA.
Prediction: Trump is not going to do that.
We had pirates on the high seas in 1798. I wonder if they ever got deported.
Somin is like the yang to Blackman's ying.
When someone says everything Trump does is illegal and would set a dangerous precedent, few will believe you when you say that Trump is doing something illegal and setting a dangerous precedent.
Unless there is a ticking time bomb in the Alien statute, no, the federal government (AKA executive branch AKA Trump) cannot on its own suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Remember, we settled that at the onset of the Civil War? Lincoln only did it unilaterally because Congress was not in session. Now, Congress is always easily available to return to session. Plus, given the Gulliver's travels way federal district judges are entertaining actions against the administration, any unilateral writ suspension will not stand.
I guess it's a race to the bottom between Somin and Blackman. May the worst man win.
When someone says everything Trump does is illegal
He is not saying that.
Remember, we settled that at the onset of the Civil War? Lincoln only did it unilaterally because Congress was not in session.
We did not settle it. Taney acted alone and his decision was not upheld by the Supreme Court. Legal experts then and now have debated if Lincoln had the power to do what he did, including if it was truly "unilateral" or authorized by current law.
The lesson: the Constitution is a suicide pact after all.
Okay, we lost our country, our prosperity, and our traditions to generations of illegal migrants, but hey, we have the LIBERTY to do drugs and sell our organs. Whoppeee!
Ohhh! I had no idea we were giving up essential liberty for a little temporary ~security~.
Oh, that sounds like a great deal!
Are they poisoning the blood?
And as we can tell from some of the replies, Krasnov will be cheered on if he does.
How would Trump actually execute such an injustice? Do smugglers and gang members in general carry membership cards, counterfeit passports with nifty embedded secret symbols, or even suggestive tattoos? Do they have distinctive secret handshakes he could see on surveillance videos? In any case, what he really wants is an excuse to use the military on US and/or Mexican soil. Seems like yet another instance of his penchant for overcompensation. You know, the long, long reach of the long, long arm of the law, that sort of thing.
M-13 does, in fact, go in for the tattoos.
Ilya admits it's legal and on the books (hafway down the article) , he could have saved hundreds of words if he'd just said "i don't like it, legal or not" -- but that's Ilya, gotta convince you that he 'arrived' at that possition and didn't 'start' at that position. I don't buy it, do you ????????????????
Good. Deport all illegals.
I think it's legally impossible to treat immigration as being within the scope of "invasion" or "predatory incursion." The statute was enacted in 1798. Our Constitution was ratified in 1788. In Article I, Section 9, it specifically addressed "Migration" until "the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," and "Congress" was expressly denied the power to prohibit any "Migration" of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit." That prohibition was reiterated in Article V. If migration was within the scope of "invasion" or "predatory incursion," then Congress would have unconstitutionally usurped the power to prohibit it even if a state wanted to permit it.
In addition, the president's power to implement this law without a declaration of war by Congress should be seen as analogous to state powers (under Article I, Section 9) to "engage in War" when "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." The crucial limitation is the requirement of "such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Absent such circumstances, only Congress has the power to start a war. Invoking this statute seems to me to necessarily be the equivalent of a presidential act of war.
This law targeted French citizens in 1798. At that time, the U.S. already was involved in the Quasi-War with France (the French were attacking and seizing American ships). But many states in the south were very pro-French and very anti-Federalist (and the U.S. government then was controlled by Federalists). So, if Trump is correct now, then back in 1798, the U.S. government could have treated migration of French citizens as, itself, an invasion or predatory incursion by France. That clearly wasn't the intent.