The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump Invokes Alien Enemies Act as Tool for Deportation - Federal Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against it [Updated]
If courts allow Trump to get away with using the Act in peacetime, it would set a dangerous precedent.

Today, President Donald Trump issued an executive proclamation invoking the use of the Alien Enemies Act to detain and deport members of Tren de Aragua Venezuelan drug gang. A few hours earlier, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order blocking the executive from using the Act to deport five Venezuelans who were apparently about to be deported on that basis.
The Alien Enemies Act was one of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the only one that is still in force. If courts let the Administration use it, they could potentially detain and deport even legal immigrants with little or no due process. But 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 detail 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 is an awful criminal organization. But it is not "invading" the United States, and it is not a "foreign nation or government."
Even if the administration is right to claim that Tren de Aragua has some connections to Venezuelan government officials, that does not mean the gang is itself a nation-state. Lots of organized crime groups bribe or otherwise suborn government officials to facilitate their black market activities. That doesn't turn these drug cartels into governments, nor does it convert their criminal activities into an "invasion."
In my last post about this issue, I explained in more detail why drug cartel activities don't qualify as an "invasion" and why a contrary ruling by the courts would set a dangerous precedent. Among other things, 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.
Moreover, although the current proclamation is limited to members of Tren de Aragua, if it is upheld there would be little to prevent the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act against other immigrants, including legal ones. Moreover, even under the current proclamation, the lack of of meaningful due process protections under the AEA (there is no right to a hearing, for example) means that some people could be detained or deported merely because the government claims they are members of Tren de Aragua, even if there is no real proof that they are.
In its brief appealing today's temporary restraining order, the administration takes the position that invocations of the Act are a "political question" that the judiciary has no power to review. If this position prevails, the president could use the AEA against any immigrants from any country anytime he wants, simply by declaring there is a "invasion" going on and the people he seeks to detain and deport are somehow connected to it. Moreover, as noted above, such an unreviewable declaration would trigger other sweeping powers, such as the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus - even for US citizens.
Much is at stake in the litigation over this issue. And not just for immigrants.
I have previously explained why invocations of the AEA and the definition of "invasion" should not be considered unreviewable political questions here, and here. Here's an excerpt outlining some of the reasons:
There is no good reason to hold that the definition of "invasion" is a political question, especially if doing so would give the president a blank check to usurp power over… Congress and suspend the writ of habeas corpus anytime he wants. Such a vast concentration of power would surely go against the original meaning, as it would enable the president to engage in arbitrary detention at will – exactly the kind of abuse early Americans had experienced at the hands of the British and sought to prevent in the future. "Invasion" has a clear definition readily susceptible to judicial interpretation…
The TRO issued by the district court lasts for fourteen days. In the meantime, the court is likely to consider whether to issue a more permanent injunction. Litigation over this vital issue will surely continue for some time to come, possibly even reaching the Supreme Court.
UPDATE: US District Court Judge James Boasberg has now expanded the temporary restraining order to cover "all noncitizens in U.S. custody" covered by Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
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
From the Aliens Act states: "...or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government." So, the conditional has two antecedents, one of which is this one, while the other mentions "at war." So, being at war is actually not the only sufficient condition to invoke the Aliens Act. Having said that, Trump's EO is going to come down to the question as to what counts as "a nation" or "a government." If the cartels share the same bloodlines, come from the same geographic region, culture, and organizationally have rules, procedures, and rules about rules, it's not a stretch to say that they are effectively mini-nations with governments, not unlike Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Exactly -- and why is Ilya so worried about this?
Maybe he is worried that he will be deported for being a Marxist.
Ilya is an actual refugee from totalitarian Marxism. He lobbies regularly for recognition of victims of communism.
You, on the other hand, support the tyrannical former KGB officer who believes the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th Century was the fall of the Soviet empire, and is doing everything in his power to reconstitute it.
Now, who's the Marxist?
Ain't been no Marxists around for decades, you been Freeze Dried, or doing Hard Time?
Cartels aren’t countries. You know that at some level by using the qualifier “mini-nations.” By your definition the Daughters of the Confederacy are a mini-nation.
It’s not very conservative to stretch the meaning of words for your momentary goals. There’s lots we can be doing about cartels or illegal migration without having to go full pomo.
You know you changed his words, right?
It’s “transitioned” he’s all into the transitioning
It is, on the contrary, an enormous stretch.
I think the Alien Enemy Act can be applied to entities that are capable of waging war but are not formal nation-states. Otherwise an enemy could mess with our constitution and laws simply but not having the relevant corporate formalities that our constitution and laws assume it has. For the constitution to not be a suicide pact, the test has to be functional, not strictly formal. Nonetheless I conpletely agree that what is going on is more like piracy than like war, these gangs are not countries or governments in a functional as well as a formal sense.
Also, I think courts have to accept Congress’ calls separately from the functional test. if Congress authorizes the use of military force against a non-country organization, I think that also suffices, and the Alien Enemy Act can be applied to those who have joined it in some clearly demonstrable way.
1) How could said hypothetical enemy "mess with our constitution and laws"?
2) Please stop using the "suicide pact" phrase. Like "fire in a theater," it's a terrible and empty cliché that was unnecessarily employed in support of censorship.
3) I reformulate my first question in light of my second point: what does this even have to do with the constitution in the first place, and what "test" do you mean? (You understand that what Prof. Somin is talking about now is a statutory question, right?)
In this case, by not formally being a country or government, yet behaving pretty much like one in practice. Hence my argument that the test for whether the Alien Enemy Act can apply to a particular organization or association (remember what this thread is about?) has to be functional, not formal.
What does that have to do with the topic of this thread, or your comment about “messing with our constitution”?
Read the Act. If you read it, you’ll see that to determine whether the executive order is legal, a judge has has to discern what is meant by a “foreign nation or government.”
Yes, judges have to decide what statutes mean. What does that have to do with your claim that unless the Alien Enemies Act can be applied to non-governments, that it would enable an enemy to mess with our constitution and laws?
It seems pretty clear that "nation" is distinct from government. The "or" in “foreign nation or government” has that purpose. The Navajo nation is an example.
If you take the teapot off the burner long enough to let the tempest settle a bit, you may find you may agree with me that the test should be a functional rather than a formal one.
This is the part that doesn’t make a lot of sense. The U.S. has shown itself capable of fighting actual wars against actual foreign states—i.e. situations where the Act could unquestionably have been invoked—without invoking it. Repealing the act tomorrow wouldn’t be suicide, and so I’m not sure why we need to pretend that it means something that it doesn’t say in order to avoid suicide either.
Professor, I see you and I have a similar take on this situation. I'm not going to get into the reason. I just have an amusing rhetorical question. Does everyone commenting about this understand that Boasberg has basically appointed himself the head of deportations for the next 2 weeks? If that isn't absurd I don't know what is. We need to deport all non-citizens and let them come back the legal way. I really don't see why everyone is so against it!
Here is the text of the law
50 USC ch 3 §21. Restraint, regulation, and removal
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
§22. Time allowed to settle affairs and depart
When an alien who becomes liable as an enemy, in the manner prescribed in section 21 of this title, is not chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, he shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of his goods and effects, and for his departure, the full time which is or shall be stipulated by any treaty then in force between the United States and the hostile nation or government of which he is a native citizen, denizen, or subject; and where no such treaty exists, or is in force, the President may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.
§23. Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges
After any such proclamation has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.
§24. Duties of marshals
When an alien enemy is required by the President, or by order of any court, judge, or justice, to depart and to be removed, it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which he shall be apprehended to provide therefor and to execute such order in person, or by his deputy or other discreet person to be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President, or of the court, judge, or justice ordering the same, as the case may be.
You know, the subordinate conjunction 'or' in section 21 introduces a lot of uncertainty. You could say it gives considerable leeway in interpretation. No doubt, this law was perfect for the time (1798). I don't think the uncertainty helps now (2025, some 227 years later).
The POTUS made the proclamation referenced in section 21.
The US is not at war with the government of Venezuela thus it does not apply.
Doesn't have to be at war, since there are two sufficient conditions that allow for executive action, only one of which is war. Look what it says, with special attention paid to the capitalized "OR."
"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, OR any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,
Both conditions require the action be taken by a foreign nation.
Is Venezuela a nation? You said just above it has a government.
Depends on what counts as a "nation." There's a colloquial definition that means a people who share a culture, ancestors, customs, etc, e.g., Jews constituted a "nation" before the state of Israel came into existence in 1948. Even the Bible, in the book of Revelation, treats "nations" in this colloquial way. Why not believe that the Founders had such a notion in mind, that their definition included both post-Reformation "nations state" as well as "nations" of the blood and soil variety? But if they did, then the Venezuelan groups targeted by the EO are in fact "nations."
They are, in fact, not.
Since Venezuela hasn’t done those other things either, that doesn’t really advance the ball.
""Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, OR any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,"
Sounds like what they're going for is a state of war, which can result from a declaration of war, or an invasion or predatory incursion....
I think my examples would be the Islamic State or Al Quaeda. None of them were regarded as countries or governments in any legal way, yet they were organized enough in terms of ability to command and control large numbers of people that they were a de facto government even if something else was the official government of the territory. So I think the test has to be functional, not formal.
But these gangs were not de facto governments by a functional test either.
As I said above, I think courts should apply a functional rather than a formal test. The Islamic State for example was certainly a functional nation or government whether or not a formal one. I think large-scale non-government entities that are effectively operating a mini-state within a state can qualify; the fundamental question is whether it is powerful enough to raise and deploy a functional army and command the effective obedience of those within its grasp. Also, if Congress authorizes use of military force against an entity, I think that also qualifies; Congress is the ultimate decision-maker about who are enemies are and when war-like action is required.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and powers capable of waging war on us shouldn’t be allowed to take advantage of our laws to hamstring us simply by avoiding the use of certain formalities.
But these gangs are not nations or governments by any reasonable functional test, and Congress has not authorized the use of military force against them.
A cartel has no "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects", so just on its face this Act can't be used to deport gang members. The relationship between gang members and a gang is voluntary and irrespective of any nation or government.
This may be a fine way to treat gang members, but they're going to have to get Congress to add to this Act to use it like that.
Which brings me to the essential question: WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS? Yes, perhaps strategically the administration wants to test the waters against the Courts, but everyone knows that without legislation this entire house of cards comes tumbling down once the shoe is on the other foot.
This is exactly the right question. Trump has a supine Congress that will give him literally anything he asks for, subject only perhaps to filibuster (and the senate GOP would probably nuke the filibuster if he demanded it). "His" decision to spend the last 2 months rampaging through the government without any legislative authority is a deliberate one. He wants to establish that he's a king; getting Congressional permission — even if as a rubber stamp — is an admission that he's not.
And I'm saying you just assume that the Republicans in Congress should somehow be opposed to what Trump is doing, so that if they don't obstruct him, they're 'supine. When in reality they were elected by the same voters to do the same things, so it's absolutely crazy to expect them to materially obstruct what he's doing.
Of course I think (not "assume" – you misuse that word a lot) Republicans in Congress should be opposed to what Trump is doing, but that literally had nothing to do with my point. Indeed, to the extent you're right that they agree with him, it makes my point even stronger: they're going to give him whatever he wants. So why isn't he asking for statutory authorization for his actions? Answer: because to ask would be a concession that he has to ask.
Bellmore — Fine, the Rs in Congress back Trump, or at least do not resist him. But that does not mean it is not a useful political tool to make them do it issue-by-issue, in roll call votes. Could be a swing-vote size minority would vote differently if they had to put their names to policies which might fail, or make a political mess.
Even if they agree with what he is doing, they have a constitutional obligation to jealously guard their institutional powers, as Hamilton put it. They did swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Funny how the definitions of "peace" and "war" are flexible enough for sending soldiers to a hundred different countries without an actual declaration of war, but not enough to use a 227-year old law.
All this self-righteous indignation would be more credible if it were more consistent. Maybe Congress should grow a little spine and take back the control the Constitution gave them.
Oh wait, there wasn't a declaration of war in 1798 either. I guess politicians have always been this craven.
The act isn’t triggered by war in general. It requires war with the country that the targeted aliens are citizens of. And the United States isn’t at war, by any definition, with the countries that matter here.
My comment was on the more general flexibility of legal interpretations of "war" and "peace".
I understand that. My comment was on the way that your comment doesn’t make any sense.
The legal system doesn't make sense. Politicians don't make sense. My comment makes as much sense as they do. That was the point of my comment.
Somin has long bemoaned that flexibility, so your beef isn’t with him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/22/congress-should-act-to-reclaim-its-war-powers/
Who were the plaintiffs in the case before Judge Boasberg?
Illegals immigrants from Venezuela who claim they’re subject to imminent deportation under the order.
Why the need for the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act? Can't they be deported simply because they are illegal immigrants?
They’re seeking asylum, so there’s a longer process required.
Noscitur a sociis 22 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"They’re seeking asylum, so there’s a longer process required."
Seeking asylum? Seriously?
They are criminals actively engaged in criminal activity. Deal with real facts
Prof. Somin.
Why are you linking to articles on LawDork.com and CBS instead of the actual orders?
. . .
Chris "Law Dork" Geidner includes background, links to orders, and screenshots of minute orders.
"The President is not a king!
(Oh, and he must do X/Y/Z IMMEDIATELY, or off with his head!)"
- Rando federal judge du jour.
If XYZ means complying with the Constitution and all federal laws, then Rando federal judge is just doing his job. I'm assuming you think all Presidents should comply with federal laws? This is a false assumption with some commenters here.
I have disagreed with Professor Somin on many things. But while the Enemy Alien Act, properly applied, is constitutional, and moreover does not depend on nation-state formalities and can apply to members of foreign organizations that are not formally states, nonetheless President has absolutely no power, no power whatsover, to apply it absent an Act of Congress that either declares war on or authorizes the use of military force against a foreign countey or organization.
Congress put the war power in the hands of Congress, and Congress only. And while the use of foreign troops abroad is non-justiciable, cases within the United States are. The courts cannot and should not recognize or enforce an attempt by a President to unilaterally invoke the power to initiate a war whenever it has jurisdictto decide the matter. President Trump’s invocation of the Enemy Alien Act absent an Act of Congress formally authorizing the use of military force against a country or entity claiming the loyalty of the aliens involved is null and void.
Congress and only Congress says who our enemies are. No Act of Congress that says so, no enemy. And no enemy, no Enemy Alien Act.
So the only problem is that CBP agents are standing on the wrong side of the border?
That seems rather easy to fix.
Whether one is inside or outside a border is sometimes just as much a matter of inches as whether one is inside or outside a womb. And yet those few inches can make every bit as much of a difference to the law in the one case as the other.
I don't disagree that the law sometimes operates in childishly arbitrary ways. But as I said, the situation as you framed it is also subject to a childishly simple fix.
For aliens well within the United States, I don’t see how putting CPB agents outside the border fixes things. And of course, countries on the other side of the border might object to their presence.
So, just to be clear, in our new judicial dictatorship, every district judge can now individually exercise the powers of the president but each acts only as a co-judicial president with the other district judges? Going to be confusing until some higher level appellate judicial co-presidents get around to issuing further clarifications. Or maybe they won't, after all, not like they have to be accountable to the voters. I wonder if they'll order more arms and money be sent to Ukraine? Guess that depends on the mood of whatever co-judicial president happens to get ahold of the matter first.
What power of the President is this judge exercising?
The president is using his discretion under the law to identify and act upon national security threats. Truman did the same thing when he continued to hold a German citizen in 1948. Also under this 1798 law. Upheld by the S.Ct. by the way. This district court is just another example of the gross judicial resistance that has metastasized in the federal courts. This is essentially a judicial coup.
Who was this German citizen?
Didn't know him personally myself but it appears he was someone whom the president, within his constitutional and statutory authority, felt merited continued detention to further the country's national security interests. But that was way before the judicial coup, back when when we had three separate branches of gov't with distinct spheres of authority.
Rivabot doesn't know because all it's doing is regurgitating something from social media, but it's probably a reference to Kurt Ludecke. But that involved a legally declared war, declared by Congress, not something the president just pulled out of his ass. The issue was whether, hostilities having ceased but no peace treaty having been signed, the president could continue to exercise the powers given to him by Congress — note, not imaginary "inherent powers" — under the Alien Enemies Act.
The president’s inherent authority as commander in chief and his discretionary powers under statutory authorities are not limited times of declared war you ignoramus. More to the point, the judiciary has no such authority. Well at least they didn’t before the judicial junta of 2025. Now I guess, the new judicial co-presidents think they can do whatever the fuck they want. At least until the adults in the room get feed up with this complete bullshit.
The president's authority as commander in chief is not inherent, but explicit, and means he can give orders to the military, subject to the constraints imposed on the military by the constitution and laws passed by Congress, as interpreted by the judiciary. (To put it in terms you can understand: the judiciary has the "inherent authority" to order the president not to take illegal acts, once its jurisdiction has been properly invoked.)
His powers under the Alien Enemies Act are limited to times of declared war, unless the U.S. has been invaded by another country, you ignoramus.
"The president's authority as commander in chief is not inherent, but explicit..." A childish and uniformed comment. Like something an idiot AI assistant would write and some idiot troll would cut and paste. (I guess I could make an asinine "bot" insult but we'll leave that to asinine trolls). Of course the President's powers are expressed in the constitution. The powers of every f'ing branch of the gov't are outlined in the constitution. without which there would be no branch of gov't you monumental imbecile. And under that constitution, certain matters are within the plenary authority of the executive, and therefore outside of judicial review, and other matters are subject ( or should be subject) to great judicial deference. Not with these off the chain district courts, of course, I'm referring to saner times. But I guess it wouldn't be a judicial coup if they weren't violating the constitution.
And yet, you don't seem to grasp the powers of the judicial branch.
Uh yeah, that's true, the full scope of the scope of the powers assumed by our new judicial co-presidents is rather unclear. They seem to be just making it up as they go along. Par for the course in any coup I suppose.
But I will explain what the president should do as head of the co-equal executive branch. The one branch, in fact (and law) in which all power is vested in the individual holding office. He should ignore this minor pretty little member of the judicial branch. The judicial branch is headed by a Supreme court and includes a shit load of lower courts, staffed by a lot of democrat hacks. Until the S.Ct. decides to weighs in, the president should, respectfully, tell this petty tyrant judge to f off. The president made a finding that Tren de Aragua is engaged in a predatory incursion "directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela. act of a foreign government." The hack judge has no authority to counteract this determination.
Slight typo, the phrase "act of a foreign government" not part of the EO quote. But even an idiot troll should understand the finding. Yeah, I know, he/she/it won't.
The president is an inferior branch. His only responsibility is to faithfully execute the laws, as written by congress and interpreted by the judiciary. HTH.
But of course even if the president had any authority, constitutional or statutory, to declare that black is white or that selling drugs is an invasion or that a criminal gang is actually a foreign country — he does not — he has no authority to deport anyone without proving to the satisfaction of his superiors in the judicial branch that those people are actually members of this gang.
You're right crazy Dave. But right only in the sense that, under this judicial coup, the constitutional order has been violated and the executive has been rendered an inferior branch. Under proper constitutional order, the executive branch is co-equal and the judicial branch has no business interfering with executive prerogatives.
What law gives the President the ability to deport anyone he wants without any due process?
The predatory animals in Tren de Aragua who have illegally crossed into our country will receive all the due process they are entitled to when they are detained and/or deported pursuant to the president’s directives.
Without due process there is no way to verify that those who were deported were Tren de Aragua.
Their neck and face tattoos speak for themselves.
They do not, of course, for multiple reasons, including that they don't exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tren_de_Aragua
Of course, I have no personal knowledge, but I trust an actual source over a bot. Not one person talking about Tren De Aragua had even heard of them, let alone knew anything about them, until Fox News made up some stuff about their activities in Aurora, Colorado during the presidential campaign.
That was a joke you moron. All that the Molly whatever was due at this point. Wit is wasted on fools and trolls.
You can just admit you didn't know what you were talking about. It won't kill you, especially since you're just a bot anyway.
You really are an idiot. I mean, you're not pretending. You're the real thing. Like I wrote above, wit is wasted on fools and trolls. And this nonsense exchange is a waste of time. The president has made his finding. His determination is authorized under the law and this hack judge has no business countermanding anything.
“in our new judicial dictatorship, every district judge can now individually exercise the powers of the president”
Riva-bot not programmed on what begging the question is…
Look at, for example, the Steel Seizure cases, or cases from the Civil War. Courts have been invalidating presidential orders for a very, very long time. Why are you claiming any of this is new? If you find the concept of the rule of law and a President, unlike a king, being subject to the rule of law novel and shocking, I can only imagine how shocked, shocked you will be if I told you there are these brand-new things called a “constitution” and a “bill of rights.” Shocking!
This is not Youngstown. The President is not attempting to nationalize any industry. But funny you mention Truman because Truman, with the sanction of the S.Ct, used the same act to continue hold a German citizen in 1948. That would be after the end of WWII just so you know. And the present hastily issued TRO also squarely concerns executive branch national security prerogatives. And not the 1st TRO interfering with Executive discretion. Nor the 2nd, or 3rd or 4th. coming of the district courts in a little over a month. It's getting hard to keep count.. The district courts are out of control.
It was not after WWII. We were still at war with Germany. A peace treaty formally ending the war in all tespects wasn’t signed until 1990.
So much for the German surrender and VE day. But thanks for letting me know because I was in and around Germany in the late 80's. Didn't know I was in a war zone. It was actually rather peaceful. And a lot of tourists blissfully enjoying themselves and yet unware of the imminent Nazi counterattack.
Late addition but I wanted to award you the stupidest comment of the day award. Again always stiff competition here but you managed to win.
This will be overturned. The judge is a traitor who should be impeached. 100% overturned on appeal or sooner
I’m all for some trolling every now and then, but at least put some effort into it!
THANK G-D FOR TRUMP
Ore 420 less bad posting.
J-S-S: F-CK TH- M-X-C-NS!
THANK GOD FOR TR-MP
Somin is the archetype of the faculty-lounge know-nothing. He hasn't the slightest idea about the real world or the real-world consequences of the policies he champions. He only knows what CATO position papers should happen. The oxygen gets pretty thin way up in the ivory tower.
I was born in Lima, Peru, and lived for many years in various Latin American countries. I even went to school one year in Venezuela one year, though it was a very different place then. I grew up among Hispanics (of which I myself am one, though you might not know it to look at me) from Latin America, though mostly Mexico and Central America, most of whom arrived here illegally, but became citizens after Reagan's 1986 amnesty. I still am close with many, some here illegally, who I try to help as I am able. I still have family and friends throughout Latin America.
Somin is clueless about how illegal immigration across our Southern border actually happens. Say you want to get to Texas from Honduras (or Africa or Asia, for that matter). Dealing with the Mexican criminal cartels is not optional. They will make you pay, and if you don't have the cash, they will extract payment in services (or they'll just kill you). So, Biden's open border served as a magnet which infused hundreds of billions of dollars into the cartels. Some suggest that human trafficking actually surpassed drug trafficking as their top revenue source, though it's not as if one can just audit their books. And, of course, they engage in sundry other illegal activities, and Biden's massive cash infusion just made them that much more powerful and dangerous.
Trump isn't trying to deport people for stealing hubcaps. Most people hadn't heard of Tren de Aragua until recently because they never had any presence in the United States until Biden rolled out the red carpet for them (and everyone else in the world). They are usually referred to as a Venezuelan gang, but, as "gangs" go, they make the Crips and the Bloods look like Cub Scouts. I believe "international paramilitary group" is a more apt descriptor than "gang." These are characters out of a Western. They come to your town, and they take over the town, not just a street corner or two. And they like to rape and murder.
As for Alien Enemies Act, this is why Trump designated these foreign gangs as terrorist groups. The Act has not been invoked since the 1950s. At that time, Congress passed a law seeming to suggest aliens must be deported in a certain way. There is clearly some tension between that and the Alien Enemies Act and therein lies the heart of the legal question.
Trump may very well lose in court. And if he does, he will turn to Congress for help, and Congress will have to choose between defending the American people or defending alien murderers and rapists. We'll see what happens.
“I once lived in South America, so I am an expert in Mexican drug cartels, and also Venezuelan ones” is certainly a… take.
Your reading comprehension skills are as keen as ever, and your post with as much substantive content as usual. I do not claim to be an "expert", just a little more knowledgeable than Somin, which, admittedly, isn't saying much. But, of course, I wouldn't deign to discuss expertise with you, who seems to be an expert on every topic under the sun, no matter how arcane, with metaphysical certitude about the answer to any legal question. You are truly the Daniel Webster of internet comments sections with a wit as dry as a Los Angeles fire hydrant.
You appeal to your own authority to ipse dixit a lot of convenient and otherwise unsupported takes.
Your general view of Latin America doesn't look like anyone else who has lived in Latin America for long.
So far, you've offered no proof of anything, only high-handedness.
You are the only person who has lived for any length in Latin America lump the countries together like you just did.
Why not start there? Then Trump could get credit for getting the law changed in a way that is good and popular, and implement the removals more efficiently, since they’d be clearly authorized.
I was told Trump was the best dealmaker ever, so getting a deal out of a GOP-controlled Congress should be easy for him!
Some actual leadership on substantive issues by moving our laws in good directions would be great. That's how you get remembered by history as a great president.
Authoritarian revenge-pr0n behavior and keeping the kneepads handy for Putin? Notsomuch.
The introductory language of the statute here should be dispositive:
Declaration of war is the exclusive prerogative of Congress, per Article I, § 8 of the Constitution. No such declaration of war exists. The nation or government of Venezuela has not perpetrated, attempted, or threatened any invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.
Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a criminal gang; it is not the nation or government of Venezuela.
President Trump is free to ask Congress to declare war on any nation-state that he chooses. He is not empowered to act unilaterally here.
Congress declared the "Global War on Terror" -- Congress declares war on (essentially) anyone whom the President declares a terrorist.
So unless Congress undeclares the war on terror, the bottom lime is that the war has been declared.
1. Congress did not “declare[] the ‘Global War on Terror’”.
2. Even if it had, because “Terror” is not a nation or government, that declaration would not trigger the statute.
Other than that, great comment!
Cool. So Trump should declare that a bunch of Democrats in the House and the Senate are terrorists, take them away without due process, and stick them in Gitmo. Hell, take away the three liberal Justices on the Sup. Ct. Problem solved.
You're welcome, America.
Ed would have done great in 1930s Germany.
Not so fun when you're on the other side of the Lawfare is it?
I mean… they rounded up the feeble-minded first.
Just saying.
Looks like they missed you
The "or" clause is in there precisely so a formal declaration is not necessary. But it does have to be a "nation"
I think the issue is that when a criminal organization operates so openly and boldly such that the government at minimum acquiesces in their existence or arguably aids and abets the conduct, the criminal organization IS, for all relevant purposes, the nation or government.
I don't know enough about TdA to say if that is the case or not, but I do understand that a government cannot simply delegate its war making powers to a group holding a sign saying "not a government" and get away with such a charade.
I think the drug cartels in Mexico certainly qualify. If to get passage through Mexico, I need permission from THEM and not the organization that claims to be the government, then the nation-state is the cartel, despite the labels that Mexico would like to put on it.
"If to get passage through Mexico, I need permission from THEM and not the organization that claims to be the government, then the nation-state is the cartel, despite the labels that Mexico would like to put on it."
Exactly that. I said it before: Ilya is in denial about how little breathing room there is between the cartels and the national governments. And about how much governmental involvement there is in the migrant caravans.
These are NOT entirely private sector activities. They are happening with the deliberate acquiescence of governments, where the governments are not actually being displaced/replaced by nominally private organizations.
That's literally the opposite of what wvattorney13 said, so I don't know how you can say "Exactly that."
wvattorney13: "when a criminal organization operates so openly and boldly such that the government at minimum acquiesces in their existence or arguably aids and abets the conduct, the criminal organization IS, for all relevant purposes, the nation or government."
Brett Bellmore: "Ilya is in denial about how little breathing room there is between the cartels and the national governments"
David Nieporent:"That's literally the opposite of what wvattorney13 said"
How a moron like DN with absolutely ZERO reading comprehension ever passed the bar is beyond me.
wvattorney13 said that cartels should be treated as the government because they act with complete autonomy, especially in smuggling people into the U.S.
Brett Bellmore said that the cartels should be treated as the government because the government is secretly involved in facilitating their actions, especially in smuggling people into the United States.
Those arguments are indeed the complete opposite of one another.
Conspicuously, Noscitur actually quoted, you paraphrased. And this was necessary to make your thesis look plausible, because what the two of us actually wrote was not so far apart.
I think you meant that zztop8970 quoted, and Noscitur paraphrased. But since his paraphrase was entirely accurate — and he had no trouble understanding what I said, unlike the reading-challenged zztop — it's hard to see what the problem is. You claimed cartels were part of the government. wvattorney claimed they were independent of the government.
Doubling down on your idiocy I see.
What wvattorney actually claimed is 'the criminal organization IS, for all relevant purposes, the nation or government".
Where did you go to law school? You should ask for you money back, and let others know to avoid a place that graduates such idiots.
I quoted what he wrote, not your misrepresentation of it.
He didn't say they "they act with complete autonomy" he said "the government at minimum acquiesces in their existence or arguably aids and abets the conduct"
I think the confusion stems largely from U.S. policy since WWII. We don't declare war on countries. We loved Iraq, for example, and especially the people of Iraq. It was merely the illegitimate lawless regime of Saddam Hussein that we had a beef with. Ditto Afghanistan.
If this thought had persisted in times past, we would never declare war on anyone. Nobody we dislike would be the government.
My point, and I believe it is yours, is that Saddam Hussein WAS the government of Iraq and the cartels are the government of Mexico despite our polite fiction that they are not.
The definitions in the Alien Enemies act should be practical and functional and not conform to a three card monte trick that hides where actual decision making lies.
The "whenever" also goes after the "or" that follows. Thus, a declaration of war is not the only sufficient condition that allows the president to act.
But, as not guilty said in his very next sentence, the other predicates haven’t happened either.
Well, not if Ilya gets his preferred definition of "invasion", anyway.
That would be sufficient, but it’s really just guilting the lily. As has been made exhaustively clear, the operative terms are “nation” and “government”.
That is less clear = the other predicates
NG - You forgot the "or"
Was that intentional?
"Moreover, as noted above, such an unreviewable declaration would trigger other sweeping powers, such as the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus - even for US citizens."
You keep writing this, and totally ignoring that suspending the writ of habeas corpus is a power of Congress, not the President.
And the odds that the Supreme court isn't going to declare such a decision by Congress to be a political matter, not judicial, are approximately zero. The Court may rarely pick a fight with Congress, a bit more often with the Presidency, but they basically never pick a fight with both at once, and especially not when they don't even have solid textual ground to defend.
Things would have to get a lot worse than now before anybody would try to suspend the Great writ, but if they did get that bad, the Court isn't going to have your back in opposing it.
Again you come down on the side of concentrated power and authoritarianism.
You don't think a single judge being able to order about the entire executive branch isn't concentrated power? The 'least dangerous branch' is making a move here to become considerably more dangerous. I expect the Court will get around to putting a stop to it soon.
And, anyway, you've totally missed my point here. Ilya continually asserts that, if the President is allowed to treat something he doesn't like as an "invasion", he could suspend the Great writ, like Lincoln did.
But, Lincoln was violating the Constitution when he did that! Saying there's an "invasion" doesn't authorize the President to suspend the writ, it authorizes Congress to suspend it; It's an Article I power, not Article II.
The second thing that Ilya typically ignores when he goes off on this tangent is that, if Congress actually DID decide there was an invasion, and suspend that writ, the courts have no say in the matter. Because it is expressly Congress' power to declare when there is a war, and to suspend the writ. Not the judiciary's.
This is not to say I would favor such a suspension. The only time such a suspension is ever justified is when an invasion renders the court system non-functional. This wasn't even the case during the Civil war, when Lincoln did it so that he could imprison his political enemies! It certainly isn't the case right now.
But my opposition to such a measure as a policy matter doesn't prevent me from understanding whose call that is as a constitutional matter. The way it apparently does for Ilya.
No, a single opinion isn't concentrated power.
Meanwhile Prof. Somin isn't an excuse. What you describe is a monarchy. A defensive, isolated, nativist and anti-minority one.
And then you wank about Lincoln. Yet again. As though that has some legal or moral weight.
Your Lincoln was a Tyrant Lost Causim does not absolve you of your cheerleading for racially nationalist monarchical authoritarianism.
The America you support is not a republic. It is profoundly unfree for everyone except retired white guys.
"What you describe is a monarchy."
I'm describing a monarchy by attributing a power to the legislature? I think you're genuinely losing your mind at this point.
You're not actually attributing power to the legislature, though, are you?
You and I both know who you're giving all the power to.
You've been doing it nonstop. Excuses like 'Congressional silence is consent' are just that.
Your vision for America is functionally a monarchy.
You're not shy about how the only way you see to deal with the evil left that's invaded every institution is a king.
Oh but Congress could stop him (but won'),
oh but he's popular so who cares about the rule, (never mind Lincoln)
oh but he's the decider so your opinions and principles don't matter.
That. That last one is where you end up. Every time.
At least you engage more than the bomb-throwers. But when you do, it really shows the MAGA position for what it is.
"You're not actually attributing power to the legislature, though, are you?"
I am, explicitly. The words are right there in my comment, if you're capable of reading and comprehending them.
But we've been here before: You've got these mental models in your head about how the opposition thinks and behaves, and once you think you have somebody pegged, you stop responding to what they actually say, because everything gets interpreted in terms of the model, and anything outside the model gets interpreted as just an effort to pretend to not be the model.
You've got these mental models in your head about how the opposition thinks and behaves, and once you think you have somebody pegged, you stop responding to what they actually say, because everything gets interpreted in terms of the model, and anything outside the model gets interpreted as just an effort to pretend to not be the model.
Brett, I think that describes you pretty accurately.
It describes everybody to some extent, Bernard: Human beings don't have the mental bandwidth to deal with every encounter de novo.
But Sarcastr0 displays it to a pathological degree, as demonstrated above, where he says, "You're not actually attributing power to the legislature, though, are you?" of a comment which did exactly that, and explicitly so.
There's nothing I can say at this point that would jar him out of interpreting everything I say according to that model, it has become unfalsifiable.
Well, lets do a big picture review, shall we?
Off the top of my head:
-Regulation of school curricula
-Regulation of school libraries
-Regulation of social media
-Regulation of private law firms
-Going after newspapers (maybe criminally!)
-Presidentially mandated investigations of specific citizens
-Impoundment
-Firing civil servants without cause
-Closing Congressionally created agencies
-Halting programs
-Using the FBI to investigate liberal groups
-Policing speech of noncitizens
-Declaring an invasion
-Declaring an emergency
Since Trump's inauguration, every single time you come down for more government regulation and authority, and/or to consolidate all that power specifically in Trump.
That's why you've become a monarchist.
And that ignores your shameful and obvious flip-flop on Ukraine.
"The only time such a suspension is ever justified is when an invasion renders the court system non-functional. "
That doesn't make much sense. If we have a non-functioning court system, then the writ would be unavailable regardless of what Congress had to say. The only possible purpose for the suspension clause would be to prevent a sitting court with the power to grant a writ from doing so.
Perhaps I was a bit absolute in saying "non-functional"; What I really mean is that the court capacity isn't there relative to the number of detained, to actually hold trials. There may be SOME capacity to still entertain habeas petitions, but not to render them anything more than a cookie cutter operation.
Ham-Ass is still holding an Amurican Hostage, Edan Alexander, I'd propose trading Khalil for him, but Ham-Ass doesn't want that piece of shit either.
What's really needed is a “Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead” moment, only with Raisuli replaced by a much longer list.
Trump has done that, several times. He just hasn’t followed up on the sending in the marines part when his bluff gets called.
A pattern: non-lawyer cultist has never heard of legislation X. Trump resorts to X either as a defence to Y or to take action Z. Cultist becomes instant expert on X and explains why under X Trump is not guilty of Y or is able to do Z. (Cultist may supply link to blog post by other non-lawyer cultist.)
Are these people in the country legally? if not, why can't they simply be deported, w/o relying on the Alien Enemies Act?
Yes, people in the country illegally can be deported, but if they fall under the Act, it shaves years off the process. The President alone by proclamation can have someone who falls under the Act removed, and that proclamation is unreviewable by a Court. One major legal question is whether an alien who is a member of a designated foreign terrorist group like Tren de Aragua is an "enemy alien" under the Act. Another will be whether such an alien with a pending asylum petition can be removed under the Act while that petition is pending.
Yes, but to be clear: the determination of whether a person falls under the Act is still reviewable. POTUS can't say, "I don't like Nancy Pelosi, so I am going to deport her as a citizen of Denmark, which I have decided we are at war with."
Yes, that's correct, I believe Trump will likely lose in Court on the grounds of the Act requiring a "declared war". In Ludecke v. Watkins (1948), the Court seemed to create a little leeway on that phrase, holding a German citizen in January 1946 fell within the Act, even though actual hostilities had officially ceased between the countries. But is being a member of a designated foreign terrorist alone enough to encompass "declared war"? I suspect not.
Another issue is whether the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (which obviously postdates the aforementioned case) essentially repealed the Alien Enemies Act by implication. It could be reasonably argued that INA sets forth the exclusive means to deport an alien, though, of course, it could be argued that it doesn't, repeal of legislation by implication being generally disfavored. I believe, however, the "declared war" language is the largest hurdle to the Trump administration's position.
As I noted earlier, my prediction is that Trump will likely ultimately lose in court, and then lobby Congress for the authority, framing the issue as protecting American citizens versus protecting alien terrorists.
"US deports hundreds of Venezuelans despite court order"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9yv1gnzyvo
"Hours before, on Saturday evening, US District Judge James Boasberg ordered a halt to deportations covered by Trump's proclamation, which invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798."
"After hearing that planes with deportees had taken off, Judge Boasberg ordered them turned back, the Washington Post reported."
That didn't happen, but story doesn't drill down into the timeline deep enough to know how long between the judge's order and when the planes touched down (or if they had already). It's 4+ hours flight time from DC to San Salvador so we'll have to wait for more details to be sure exactly what occurred.
If intentional, now do we have a constitutional crisis?
Is a judge in DDC going to order that we invade El Salvador to rescue the criminal gang members and bring them back to the US?
Don't get him any ideas. Anytime I think of something so absurd that a judge wouldn't order it, I see it the next time.
Remember when a judge ordered that the military stop the bombing of Cambodia?
The criminals are apparently no longer within U.S. jurisdiction. If there is a problem, Judge Boasberg can take it up with the President of El Salvador.
The order resembles the order Justice Douglas issued to end the Vietnam war, or whatever it was. (As far as anyone knows, the bombing didn't stop when the order was in effect.)
Great point!
I suppose if these aliens ultimately prevails, the ones already deported to el Salvador will be entitled to readmission upon application at a United States Port of Entry.
You mean the order that was stayed six hours after being issued?
Was the order obeyed during those six hours? Court orders are not magic wands.
I doubt that the “original public meaning” of this particular law supports the government’s action in any way. Of course “original public meaning for me but not for thee” is also a popular interpretive tool these days.
That is in fact the original public meaning of original public meaning.
No problem when we flew these foreign nationals into and around the country but it’s another constitutional crisis to fly them out.
A statutory crisis, maybe. This particular act never made it into the constitution.
The constitutional crisis is the thug-in-chief defying a court order.
In fairness, the timeline doesn't seem to be completely nailed down yet. Although Rubio sharing Nayib Bukele’s “Oopsie… Too late” social media post does make it seem like some surreal lawless era is well underway.
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. The statute clearly was designed to respond to an actual act of war: "a declared war" with a "foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion" by a "foreign nation or government."
I also 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 (from ratification in 1788 until 1808) "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 1798, this law was enacted to target French citizens. 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.
I also think it is weird that Trump invoked "our Lord." He signed this order "this fourteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth."
I thought maybe Trump copied that format from President Washington's famous Neutrality Proclamation. But even that differed materially from this. It did not mention "our Lord." The Neutrality Proclamation stated "the twenty-second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the seventeenth."
I mean, Trump didn't write it. That isn't even me throwing shade at Trump for his general lack of interest in details; no president drafts these things for himself.
But somebody made a very particular decision to insert that language. Certainly, Trump didn't stoop to writing those words. But those words reflected Trump's decision. This isn't the normal format.
Professor Somin, for an analysis based on our Constitution and more of our history (considering whether we are now in a quasi-war with Venezuela), please consider: https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/is-america-now-in-a-quasi-war-with?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Listen to you, dangerous precedent
Your asss is on fire and you are warning everybody else
Judicial Coup: Radical Leftist Judges Wage All-Out War Against President Trump and the Nation — 129 Legal Challenges Filed in Two Months, MORE THAN ALL US PRESIDENTS COMBINED!
Anyone with some historical sense sees what TRO's herald
Judicial Coup: Radical Leftist Judges Wage All-Out War Against President Trump and the Nation — 129 Legal Challenges Filed in Two Months, MORE THAN ALL US PRESIDENTS COMBINED!
Again ---please!!--- so why are you right and these 27 states are wrong, I honestly am confused
27 States File Brief with Supreme Court Backing Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Tren de Aragua Gangsters