Fifth Circuit Will Rehear Alien Enemies Act Case En Banc
It will review a panel decision holding that Trump could not invoke this sweeping wartime authority by claiming illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion."
Earlier this week the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided to grant an en banc rehearing in W.M.M. v. Trump. The panel decision in that case ruled that Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was illegal, because illegal migration and drug trafficking and other activities of the Venezuelan drug gang Tren de Aragua do not qualify as a war, "invasion," or "predatory incursion." The AEA can only be used to detain and deport immigrants when one of these extraordinary conditions, or a threat thereof, exists.The case will now be reheard by all 17 active Fifth Circuit judges.
In an amicus brief I coauthored in the case on behalf of the Brennan Center, the Cato Institute, and others, we argue that "invasion" and "predatory incursion" require a military attack, and that courts should not defer to presidential assertions that these extraordinary conditions exist. As James Madison put it in addressing this issue, "invasion is an operation of war."
Otherwise, the AEA and the Constitution's grant of extraordinary emergency powers when an "invasion" exists could be invoked by the president anytime he wants, thereby creating grave dangers to civil liberties and to the separation of powers. For example, the Constitution states that, in the event of "invasion," the federal government can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, thereby authorizing indefinite detention without due process - not only of recent immigrants, but also US citizens.
Prominent conservative Judge Andrew Oldham wrote a lengthy dissent to the panel decision, arguing that the definition of "invasion" and other terms in the AEA is left to the unreviewable discretion of the executive. I outlined some key flaws in his argument here. In a solo concurring opinion in United States v. Abbott, a previous Fifth Circuit en banc case, Judge James Ho, another well-known conservative, similarly argued the definition of "invasion" is an unreviewable "political question," left to the determination of the executive and also of state governments (under Ho's approach, they too can claim an "invasion" exists whenever there is illegal migration or drug smuggling). I criticized Judge Ho's reasoning here.
Both Ho's approach and Oldham's would give the president (and, in Ho's case, also state governments) unlimited authority to declare an "invasion" at any time, and thereby wield sweeping authority to undermine civil liberties and the separation of powers. The federal government could use this power to detain and deport even legal immigrants, and to suspend the writ of habeas corpus (including for US citizens). Under the Constitution, in the event of "invasion" state governments can "engage in war" even without congressional authorization. I wrote about the dangers of that in greater detail here, as well as in the amicus brief.
Such vast unilateral authority goes against the text and original meaning of both the Constitution and the Alien Enemies Act. British violations of the writ of habeas corpus were one of the main grievances that led to the American Revolution, and the Founding Fathers did not intend to give the president the power to replicate those abuses anytime he might want.
I will have more to say about these issues as the AEA litigation continues in this case and in other cases currently before various federal courts. We will likely file an updated version of our amicus brief before the en banc Fifth Circuit.