Appeals Court Considers Trump’s Administration’s Application of the Alien Enemies Act for Deportations

March 24, 2025 TruthUSA

At least one judge appeared doubtful regarding the position taken by the Trump administration.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reviewed arguments on March 24 regarding the potential suspension of a lower court ruling that barred the Trump administration from deporting alleged affiliates of a Venezuelan gang under the Alien Enemies Act.

Although the court’s decision remains uncertain, Judge Patricia Millett expressed skepticism toward the administration’s stance.

Conversely, Judge Justin Walker posed numerous inquiries to both parties but appeared to lean towards supporting the administration’s arguments.

At one point, Millett remarked to Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Drew Ensign that “Nazis received better treatment” under the Alien Enemies Act compared to how the administration handled suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

She specifically challenged the administration for not indicating that it had conducted any hearings for the individuals facing removal.

Walker questioned Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney representing the plaintiffs, and made remarks that suggested doubt about the strength of Gelernt’s case.

During the hearing, Walker pressed Gelernt for an instance of a court order that successfully halted a national security operation being conducted partially overseas.

The hearing occurred following U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s decision, which Trump labeled as grounds for impeachment, denying the administration’s request to overturn orders that blocked the implementation of Trump’s proclamation regarding the deportation of Tren de Aragua members under the Alien Enemies Act.

In his ruling on March 24, Boasberg outlined that individuals were “entitled to individualized hearings to assess whether the [Alien Enemies] Act is applicable to them at all.”

On March 24, the administration sought to have the appeals court reverse Boasberg’s suspension of the president’s proclamation implementation.

Ensign remarked during oral arguments that Boasberg’s order “indicates an unprecedented and significant infringement on the powers of the executive branch.”

“It restricts the president’s exercise of his war and foreign affairs powers under the Alien Enemies Act, attempting to direct operations beyond the United States borders and in ways that could interfere with delicate diplomatic negotiations,” Ensign added.

He also contended that the proper legal recourse for the plaintiffs was through a habeas corpus petition, a claim that elicited some resistance from Millett.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, engaged five plaintiffs who claimed they were at risk of removal under Trump’s proclamation, including some who alleged they were not affiliated with Tren de Aragua or were victims of the group.

While the administration has not deported these five individuals, it has removed others during flights that coincided with a hearing in which Boasberg prevented the implementation of Trump’s proclamation.

Earlier this month, Boasberg granted class certification, thus expanding the lawsuit to encompass more than just the five plaintiffs, covering “all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subjected to the March 15, 2025, presidential proclamation.”

In a dialogue with Gelernt, Walker questioned why the case was filed in the District of Columbia when potential plaintiffs were located throughout the country.

“It seems peculiar to file in Washington, D.C., where it’s probable that no one is detained under the [Alien Enemies Act].”

In response, Gelernt noted, “people are being transferred from various locations across the country. Hence, we cannot ascertain if individuals were initially in D.C.”

Walker’s remarks came amidst Trump’s criticisms of nationwide injunctions and skepticism concerning attorneys allegedly practicing “judge shopping,” or selecting judges more likely to grant extensive injunctions.

Source link