President Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to target Venezuelan gang members, claiming they pose a threat to US security. Legal challenges have emerged questioning the legitimacy of this action, prompting a temporary restraining order to protect affected individuals from deportation. Critics highlight potential constitutional violations associated with this unprecedented use of the AEA.
On Saturday, the White House issued a proclamation by President Trump targeting Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan gang. The directive aims at the apprehension and removal of Venezuelan nationals connected to TdA, which the proclamation labels a “designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.” It claims that TdA is engaged in an invasion and irregular warfare against the United States, citing alleged crimes such as kidnappings, extortion, and drug trafficking.
This invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) marks a historic precedent, as it has not been employed without a formal war declaration or a recognized aggressor nation. The AEA allows the president to deport citizens of enemy nations during wartime or invasions. Historical applications have been against British subjects in the War of 1812 and Japanese and German nationals in the World Wars.
Shortly after the proclamation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward Foundation initiated a lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelans to challenge the action. The plaintiffs, concealed by pseudonyms, assert that deportation would expose them to imprisonment, torture, or persecution in Venezuela by the Maduro government. The lawsuit contends that the invocation of the AEA during peacetime exceeds presidential authority and violates several legal statutes and constitutional rights.
In the lawsuit, plaintiffs argued that the AEA cannot be invoked against a non-nation entity, like TdA, and since the U.S. is not in a state of declared war with Venezuela, such a claim is illegitimate. US District Chief Judge James Boasberg temporarily halted the removals, granting a two-week restraining order to protect targeted Venezuelan nationals from deportation during the litigation.
Critics of the proclamation have labeled it an unlawful overreach aimed at evading regular immigration protocols. Arthur Spitzer from the ACLU stated that there is no military action warranting the use of the AEA, deeming President Trump’s actions as unlawful breaches of fundamental rights.
In summary, President Trump’s application of the Alien Enemies Act against members of the Tren de Aragua has faced immediate legal challenges, raising concerns about authority, legality, and the treatment of individuals potentially at risk. The legal battle commenced with a restraining order from a U.S. District Chief Judge and underscores the ongoing tension between national security measures and individual rights.
Original Source: www.jurist.org
