The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Solicitor General Is Still Waiting For An Actual Ruling In A.A.R.P. v. Trump
Nearly a month has elapsed since the ACLU's very good Friday.
On Friday, April 18, the Supreme Court issued an administrative stay of the alien's removal in the case formerly known as A.A.R.P. v. Trump.
There is before the Court an application on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible. The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a).
The Court ruled mere moments before the Fifth Circuit issued its order. Now, nearly a month later, the matter remains pending before the Court.
It is obvious to me that the Supreme Court was not really interested in waiting for the Fifth Circuit. Indeed, the Court probably thought it better to issue this interim ruling that created the impression that the bad judges in Texas were dragging their feet. No one in the media would pay attention to the case in the day and weeks after. All that matters is the initial headline.
But in reality, the government is stuck. The Supreme Court provisionally certified a class, which the District Court declined to certify. Many of the aliens in Texas are clearly removable under other authorities, but the Court's blunderbuss injunction blocks their removal on any grounds. And the Supreme Court has shown not even the slightest interest in resolving this dispute.
The Solicitor General has now come back to the Court with a supplemental memorandum regarding the emergency application, that has been pending for nearly a month.
The brief explains that the plaintiffs no longer need the Court's emergency ruling, since they have pursued further judicial relief:
Intervening developments make clear that neither interim nor permanent relief is warranted; that the equities now weigh particularly heavily against relief; and that, at a minimum, this Court should modify the temporary injunction to allow the government to remove these unlawfully present aliens pursuant to non-AEA authorities, which applicants have conceded the government should be able to do. . . .
Other developments also bear out the lack of grounds for relief. It has now been more than three weeks since this Court entered an order precluding the removal of all members of the putative class. That three-week time frame constitutes more than adequate opportunity to pursue judicial relief under any standard. Thus, no putative class member now has any plausible claim to denial of notice or opportunity to be heard. See Trump v. J.G.G., 145 S. Ct. 1003 (2025).
Moreover, many of the aliens in the "putative class" can be removed under other authorities. Yet the government is still handcuffed because of John Roberts's late night blue plate special:
Meanwhile, the equities have also swung further against relief. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that there are some 176 putative class members. App., infra, 50a. Because this Court's order categorically prohibited removing those 176 putative class members even under non-AEA authorities, the government has been detaining these aliens instead of removing the many putative class members who may be otherwise removable under non-AEA authorities, such as Title 8 of the United States Code. Unsurprisingly, given that the putative class members were detained based on their membership in a designated foreign terrorist organization, they have proven to be especially dangerous to maintain in prolonged detention. Some 23 putative class members recently barricaded themselves in a housing unit for several hours and threatened to take hostages and harm ICE officers, as described in the appended Declaration of Joshua D. Johnson, Acting Field Office Director for the Dallas Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
I remain baffled why the Court is willing to move heaven and earth to provide assistance to criminal aliens, but does nothing when other litigants come to the Court seeking emergency relief.
The government offers an easy way out of this morass:
Especially given those developments, the government requests that the Court lift its administrative injunction and deny further relief. The putative class members are not proper parties and have received adequate notice and opportunity to pursue habeas petitions. And the named petitioners have filed habeas petitions and have not shown an imminent risk of removal while those petitions are pending. At a minimum, the Court should modify the administrative injunction to permit the removal of any aliens eligible for removal under non-AEA immigration authorities.
I would hope that over the past month, Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have seen how flawed the process was. Perhaps they joined the Chief's opinion based on less-than-perfect information about what the Fifth Circuit would do. Justice Alito and Thomas's dissent has improved by the day. This time for reflection may alter the relief offered.
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
First of all, the government should deport anyone with alternate grounds for deportation, notwithstanding the Supreme Court order. If the Supreme Court is going to blow off the law then it cannot complain when others follow suit. A court saying "Because I said so" isn't law, it's decree.
The reason the Court shows so much towards criminal aliens is that it wants to show people that it is "on it." It will flyspeck capital cases for the same reason. It wants to appear above the fray, doing right. This is performance theater.
No, it's law.
You have the idea that law is whatever a court says in an order. Ok, that's one definition. I tend to think more broadly. Let's take a quick example from Ohio--hack judge gets po'd because some non-party criticizes his handling of a case. He, of course, orders the non-party to be haled into court. That's law--in your mind--not mine.
The Supreme Court has no lawful power to order these guys to be free from removal on grounds other than the AEA, and its refusal to modify the order is disgusting and delegitimizing.
1) The Supreme Court has the lawful authority pursuant to the All Writs Act to enter an order to preserve its own potential jurisdiction.
(A court does not have the authority to issue orders to people or entities not actually before the court — your hypo — unless they are acting in conjunction with parties, but the U.S. government is, of course, before the court in the WMM¹ case.)
2) The Supreme Court hasn't "refused" to modify anything; the government's request to do so was filed yesterday. There's simply no emergency here on the government's end. Sending people to foreign torture prisons from where you purportedly cannot retrieve them is an irreparable harm to those people; keeping those people confined for a few extra weeks is not an irreparable harm to the government.
¹ Née AARP.
That's actually not a hypo. Some judge in a northern Ohio county got butt hurt because he got wind of an email from a non-party to a party. Non-party got emergency relief from court of appeals.
In any event, people who are otherwise deportable are deportable. Supreme Court has no business stopping deportations in that case. And the order should be defied.
Only after the appropriate process has been followed to find them deportable. The government doesn't even claim to have done that for most of the people we're discussing. (It does claim to have done it for some, but in a way that makes pretty clear that it's bullshitting. It says "Out of 176 putative class members, ICE estimates that 'approximately 27 are subject to final orders of removal and amenable to removal pursuant to Title 8 authorities.'"
WTF does "approximately" mean here? Trump ran out of fingers and toes to count the number of removal orders, so he just had to guess?)
In which case Trump should be executed. Because "I think a court made a mistaken ruling so I will just ignore it" is not a thing.
In which case Trump should be executed. Because "I think a court made a mistaken ruling so I will just ignore it" is not a thing.
If courts don't stay in their lanes, I wouldn't count on that. Honest mistakes, ok. Willful BS orders . . . .
Yes, the proper course of action is to just ignore court rulings if they get in the way of you sending them to brutal offshore prisons. Spoken like a true fascist.
I think the fascists are those whining about a mere 59 South Africans coming to America.
How exactly does that comport with 'fascism'?
I mean, this is obvious trolling on Trump's part, and too many liberals are taking the bait. If these people are legitimate refugees, then pretty much every one Trump is trying to deport is.
That is not fascism, that is old fashioned racism.
Why?
The only group that gets a special asylum program just for them is the white guys living rule of a black guy?
Those people, huge injustice, act fast!
Everyone else? I'm sure they're not worse off. Heck, lets cancel Afghani asylum claims, just to drive the point home.
It's trolling, by being racially selective as all hell.
59 people bro. Compared to how many others?
What the government's brief cleverly doesn't mention and Blackman uncleverly parrots is that there was no reason for any of the putative class members to file for individual relief while there was a pending class certification motion.
Concepts like evidence and due process evade people at Top 200 law schools. Also common sense about irreparable harm.
In contrast, people at such schools don't even think to ask why the government was trying to misuse the AEA if these people were already legitimately deportable.
Yep. I also won’t be too surprised if Judge Hendrix’s docket gets close to 176 new habeas cases added to it pretty soon.
I think this is the response... putative class membership in a habeas case.
I don't claim to be a habeas expert; but typically they are individual claims. But here there are common claims (with respect to whether the AEA was properly invoked at all or its conditions precedent have been met). Since the Sup Ct previously said those subject to the statute have the right to challenge the statute or their designation; if the statute itself was invoked erroneously (which at least one district court judge in Texas has found) then all the putative class would have the same defense to deportation as an enemy alien.
Once that issue is resolved for all; individual deportations under other statues/immigration laws could and would likely commence.
But there is a rather large difference between being sent back to your own country on a one way plane ride and being sent to a prison in an entirely different country (with the prison term undefined as to length). So if in these latter proceedings; if the US indicates an intent of deporting them to CECOT in El Salvador anyway...there could be other defenses or withholding arguments that would apply. Like the convention against torture or other human rights treaties the US is part of or potentially other due process arguments. We won't know til we get there what all the possibilities are and none of that happens until the legal determination of the applicability or not of the AEA is resolved.
No illegal alien has a due process right to remain in this country. Period. Paragraph. End of discussion.
But you agree that they're not under US jurisdiction, right?
I agree that they have no due process rights to remain in this country and may be removed in expedited proceedings under federal law. If you believe that their being subject to removal somehow serves to qualify their offspring for birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment, you're welcome to your view. In fact, I hope someone tries that argument on Thursday. The Court might want to consider adding some canned laughs to the audio feed.
That is a lie that fascists tell themselves. It has no basis in US law. Bootlick more asshole.
Feel better? You can scream at the sky all you want but it won't give illegals a due process right to remain in this country. What they're entitled to under the law is expedited removal. Again, ask Bill Clinton. He did it a million times (literally).
Insulting fascists always makes me feel better.
As we’ve established a number of times, you’re not a lawyer and don’t know about what you write.
Why would I choose to publicly reveal any personal information you pathetic little troll? Is your real name "John 4"?
Bots don't actually have real names.
Most trolls actually hide their identities. Some hacks, like Jeffrey Toobin, can't avoid their public embarrassments. If this bot fixed troll above is stupid enough to use his real name, I guess he's in the Toobin category. I'm just glad I can't see what he's doing alone at night trolling and surfing for bot porn.
Bottom line: the Court doesn't trust Trump. They didn't when he tried to deport people just ahead of their midnight stay when they claimed nothing was imminent. They still don't after this brief which claims that the past 3 weeks suffice for individual habeas petitions even though (as DMN points out) the clock didn't start until after the judge refused to certify a class.
No reason?
This sounds like a rerun of a district court case, where the plaintiffs put all their eggs in one basket and lost, because they had banked on a sympathetic judge.
There's no reason at any given moment the putative class couldn't go poof and disappear (because of an adverse ruling)? Really? That some egotistical overconfidence.
Yes, no reason. The entire purpose of a class action is to protect the rights of the putative class, so that those people don't have to file protective suits during the pendency of the certification motion. And given that SCOTUS had left a stay in place, there doubly wasn't any reason to.
(And also, every other district court that had considered this issue had ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on these aspects.)
At this point, the putative class members should be filing their habeas petitions, though.
So you actually agree with me, after saying I was wrong.
I know what the class action is and its protection, which is why I said waiting could be a mistake, because it's unclear how long this protection might last. Note was I was not making any claim about the law or the timing after should the class protection disappear.
One reason I can think of for not to file the individual claims would be the appearance of conceding that certifying a class in habeas proceedings is a relatively unknown legal novelty. As well as the relative inconvenience.
He seems to be directly contradicting your 'the plaintiffs put all their eggs in one basket and lost.'
Class actions are not meant to be a gamble.
No, I don't actually agree with you. I don't think they made a procedural mistake (let alone one characterized by "egotistical overconfidence"), and you do.
A key difference between an administrative stay and an injunction is that an injunction is appealable. Who does the government plan to appeal the Supreme Court’s administrative stay to?
The Supreme Court clearly wants those affected to remain in place until it passes judgment on the AEA. The Court is making it clear that the Administration cannot expect to avoid delay by employing highly questionable legal strategems. They will be reviewed and things will be frozen in place until they are. Indeed, if there was no penalty for invoking highly questionable legal strategems, the Administration could do it all the time,
Moreover,and more fundamentally the courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular simply cannot and do not trust the administration not to spirit people out of the country in any short interval that opens while an injunction is not in effect. They therefore do not want to take the risk of lifting their stay. This also sends a message that needs to be sent.
An inevitable consequence of the administration’s claim that thise removed from the country cannot be returned together with its failure to return Garcia, is that everyone not protected by an injunction will always suffer permanent and irreparable harm. If the Administration did want the obvious consequences of its statements and actions, it should not have done them.
The Supreme Court is not the least bit baffled by the bullshit it has been receiving from the Administration’s lawyers. And its shills.
At the risk of giving Blackman any credit, I will mention something I've seen elsewhere (which he may have said earlier)...the continuation of this stay does suggest that the Court's purported fidelity to formalism is a sham.
Unless... (and I've not yet seen anyone make this argument), the way it is constructed has put the burden to act elsewhere, and those other parties have not, for whatever reason.
Are the Fifth Circuit or any of the district courts supposed to do something, but are not? Does that explain the stalemate?
What "continuation" of the stay? Again: the government just asked yesterday for it to be lifted.
That would be one answer to Blackmun's question. The stay has "continued" since it was imposed, with no apparent action for weeks, as Blackmun correctly noted.
Your observation about the government request now does not explain why nothing else happened for weeks.
But nothing happening for weeks is why SCOTUS didn't do anything during that time. Nothing had changed, so why would SCOTUS lift its stay? The government itself recognized that, which is why it didn't file its supplemental filing until yesterday, after the district court ruled on Friday.
"They therefore do not want to take the risk of lifting their stay. This also sends a message that needs to be sent."
Then the courts cannot complain when the Administration decides to send a message.
"If the Administration did want the obvious consequences of its statements and actions, it should not have done them."
This is not a fight the courts are going to win.
In the American constitutional Republic, the President is not boss. He does not rule. He presides. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is the final arbiter of what the constitution requires.
If Trump attempts to overthrow the constitutional republic, he then needs to take into account how many people in this country are loyal to it and willing to die fighting him to block his attempt at overthrow.
If, if it comes to it, the Administration refuses to obey and the Court needs a posse comitatus to enforce its orders, I think you’ll find there are a lot people in this country than you might have thought willing to be part of it.
I wouldn’t be so sure the courts are not going to win.
"The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is the final arbiter of what the constitution requires."
...and who decided that?
The founders, when they vested the judicial power in the judiciary.
Which can be limited . . . . jurisdiction.
First, Congress sets limits on the courts’ jurisidiction, and it has not done so. Second, for habeas corpus in particular, the Constitution contains a Suspension Clause which prevents Congress from removing “core” habeas corpus from the jurisdiction of the federal courts unless the conditions of the Suspension Clause are met.
The Supreme Court, I think, is obligated to explain the justification for an order which, due to the concession of the plaintiffs, is just unjustified.
I doubt the courts are going to get a bunch of people to fight Trump if he deports criminal aliens.
I'd prefer that we have a system of judicial review/supremacy. But that presupposes courts staying in their lane. They are not.
"Some 23 putative class members recently barricaded themselves in a housing unit for several hours and threatened to take hostages and harm ICE officers, as described in the appended Declaration of Joshua D. Johnson, Acting Field Office Director for the Dallas Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security."
Government should move to dismiss their claims under a modified fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
Not a thing.
Argue by analogy. Aliens who behave like that should be on the next plane to CECOT!
I'll settle for sending you to CECOT.
Don't see that happening. MAGA baby.
I thought only Dr. Ed talked like that, and it was bad. Even the suggestion of deporting (alleged) US citizens was a great threat to our republic.
Good to know it's allowable now.
Rightfully so. They are being illegally held by a corrupt fascist government. Just like any other kidnapping, they are well within their rights to kill anyone who is imprisoning them.
We need to make this well known: When Trump goons kidnap you, you have the right to get free.
You are going to get people killed saying stuff like this. It won't be the ICE agents who die either.
What is the alternative? Allow people to be disappeared? Accept being kidnapped?
The republic seemed to survive Obama waxing innocent civilians who were also US citizens.
"I remain baffled why the Court is willing to move heaven and earth to provide assistance to criminal aliens"
Josh's lack of respect for the constitution is pathetic. They are not criminal alien's until they've had due process, which so far has not been afforded. Some of them have already been proven to be here legally. Josh not only hates constitutional rights, he is a liar.
The OP notes "many" of the people involved can be removable on some ground. The government is supposed to use the correct ground. Their good faith in even showing a basic ability to determine if "criminal aliens" are involved recently has been lacking.
I remain baffled why the Court is willing to move heaven and earth to provide assistance to criminal aliens, but does nothing when other litigants come to the Court seeking emergency relief.
We might have different definitions of what "moving heaven and earth" means. Again, however, determining who are "criminal aliens" and appropriately handling them is something the Trump Administration has not shown.
Instead, there is good evidence that they wrongly sent multiple people to a foreign prison appropriately given the label "hellhole" (e.g., see evidence of human rights violations), and are playing fast and loose with judges who have the responsibility to address the situation.
JB's "bafflement" is not too surprising given his past judgment calls. Perhaps, he should read Professor Leah Litman's book, released today, for further clarification.
You are making the mistake of assuming JB is an intellectually honest person. He knows many of these people are innocent. He knows due process requires the correct grounds. He knows SCOTUS isn't "making heaven and earth". He just pretends all this is true because he is a cuck for the the Trump administration no matter how illegal or unconstitutional their actions. JB has no ethics and no spine.
I'm not assuming anything regarding his honesty.
That’s right. The Administration is responsible for the consequences of choosing a highly questionable legal theory when they could have used a more straightforward one. Highly questionable legal theories tend to get tied up in courts for long periods of time. It’s the way it is.
Yet another example of the Trump administration's attempts to play fast and loose with the law backfiring.
If there's a bunch of people in this cohort that were otherwise deportable, Trump should have used normal procedures to deport them. Instead, he tried this gimmick and ends up with all of them occupying ICE beds that now can't be used for deporting people through regular procedure, either.
And of course the Abrego Garcia case continues to loom large here: since Trump is claiming that he can't fix any mistakes in deporting people, the courts are going to be reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt in any other proceedings.
Just more evidence of why Trump's chaotic and unlawful approach is preventing him from deporting as many people as Biden was.
Yeah, I don't think Abrego Garcia will ever be back in the United States, but he does show clearly the irreparable harm if this injunction was lifted.
Not really--had he been sent to Guatemala, no prob.
No, that's not right. The government does not have the authority to just unilaterally pick any country it wants to deport an alien to. The alien has the right to contest any other destination just as Garcia contested El Salvador.
Sez who?
Congress. Did you really think the law would be, "Well, we can't send you to your home country if there's a threat of persecution/torture, but we can send you to some random other country of our choosing where there's a similar threat of persecution/torture?"
Currently there's no Safe Third Country agreement with Guatemala.
But let's take the steelman version of your argument and say that Abrego Garcia had been legally deported. Well then of course you're correct his case wouldn't matter because there would be nothing for Trump to fix! But it would also have nothing to do with irreparable harm since he wouldn't have actually been harmed in the sense that he would have been given the due process he deserved prior to being deported.
Trump intends to deport illegals aliens who are already living in this country. Biden did no such thing. His "deportations" (like Obama's) were merely turn-backs at the border. And few enough of those.
Do you have deportation data broken down by at the border versus already in the country? For Obama? Trump 45? Biden?
Most of Trump v1s deportations were also at the border. Deportations from the interior dropped during the pandemic (under Trump) and ramped back up during Biden's term. You're right that Biden didn't have the best overall record of deporting people from the interior--that was Obama.
This is a problem of the government's own making. They tried to do an illegal midnight deportation and got slapped down. Tough shit.
Ah,, the "tough shit" storehouse of Article III power.
Yes, there is plenty of judicial power in "This is a problem of the party's own making." Lots of tough-shit type actions in equity.
True enough, although there is a ton of judicial abuse of said power. Not sure that principle runs against the government with the fervor you think. And the "wise [sic] Latina", the abuser of military recruiters and the scrape queen seemed to disagree with your premise in the case against the Cali AG who was leaking donor info like a sieve.
"I remain baffled why the Court is willing to move heaven and earth to provide assistance to criminal aliens, but does nothing when other litigants come to the Court seeking emergency relief."
Because they were illegally being sent to be tortured in a El Salvadorian prison you bootlegging fascist.
"Bootlegging fascist" is a new one. What does it mean in simple English? A fascist who is smuggling liquor?
It means that autocorrect changed bootlicking to bootlegging.
Yeah, here comes the horde of Aryans from RSA.
Well, a judge in PA just ruled the AEA can be used. Off to read her opinion!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716.72.0_4.pdf
I’m sure some conspirator will note this new ruling soon. But for now, initial impressions:
1) the PA district court finds application of the AEA to TdA is allowable, based on the gov’t representations that TdA is a foreign terrorist organization and working with the Venezuelan gov’t, and in-U.S. gang activities qualify as a “predatory incursion”. The result is facially plausible, though I don’t know how well it will fare on appeal.
2) Judge Haines goes seriously out of her way to say she’s not accusing the gov’t of directly misrepresenting facts … but calls out some sketchy stuff and IMHO comes pretty close.
3) Judge Haines does grant habeas relief to the current individual Petitioner in the form of a 21 day notice requirement if the Petitioner is (re)designated as someone subjected to the AEA. The phrase “constitutionally deficient” is used for the amount of notice the gov’t wants to provide, and the court expressly states concern that without an order, the gov’t will again try to designate-and-deport before a court can act.
4) the putative class is also decertified, based on representations that there are currently no other detainees in PA subject to the AEA. I think the gov’t might be getting a little cute with their facts here, but if there are really no detainees to whom the AEA could be applied, it seems correct.
Yeah, I don't understand why the administration is so desperate to deport people that they're just outright lying about where people are and why they're being deported. We saw that with the Tufts student, we saw that here, we saw that with other AEA people in other jurisdictions, we saw that with the 2 year old who was illegally deported…
The cruelty really does seem to be the only point. We know that there's no national security issues here and it's just racism, but they still seem to take immense sadistic joy in the sheer fact of deporting people.
You are so insufferable. The two year old was with her custodial parent, if we are thinking about the same case. Hard to say that she was deported.
Most normal people take a look at Kilgar and just say "raus!". (Let's go whole hog, right?) You go to the ends of the earth to say that the government has nothing against him. Well, not sure about that from a legal standpoint, as an executive fact-finder determined that he has gang ties, but whatever, as a practical matter, as Tommy Lee Jones put it, "Sam, this guy's dirty."
You can insist on "rule of law" etc. etc. But there is a significant portion of the public who doesn't care. Millions broke our laws, and society has the right to protect itself from the changes wrought by all this illegal immigration. You feel otherwise--fine. Then, instead of people like Laken Riley, if an illegal is going to commit a violent crime, let you be the victim.
And I do get joy from some asshole like Kilmar cooling his heels in ES.
What is your basis for that claim?
The conservative, Trump-appointed judge hearing her case seems to have fewer difficulties than you have.
I'm not sure whether that's in fact true. (Or whether most normal people actually know either the facts or the law relating to his case.) But if true, so what?
There always are. Slavery, segregation, Japanese internment, and many other immoral policies have enjoyed some combination of public support and apathy. Again, so what?
If your point is that Trump is doing these things because they're popular, I think your premise is false; even on immigration, Trump's approval rating has plummeted. But even if you're correct, it doesn't address the point I was raising, which is that Trump could be cracking down on immigration without being gratuitously sleazy and cruel.
Take the AEA stuff which has caused so much litigation: there are 10 million (I know MAGA has now dishonestly inflated that, but if MAGA's number were right it would just bolster the point) illegal immigrants in the U.S. Conservative estimates are that there are less than 1,000 TdA members in the U.S. Why all the focus on 0.01% of illegal immigrants, based on flimsy things like tattoos? (Note that many of the alleged TdA members here are not here illegally, but assume they all are.)
Aren't you a conspirator? Aren't you noting it?
The judge sweeps the entire issue of if TdA is a foreign government under the rug by simply accepting Trump's proclamation as unreviewable truth. The rest of the decision is just misdirection.
That's a question of statutory interpretation--how much deference to give to the president based on what Congress said.
I'm still wondering why Actors Equity Association thinks it's a good idea to send members of the American Association of Retired Persons to El Salvador. Perhaps a charity vacation thing.
Mr. D.