Appeals court blocks Trump from deporting members of Tren de Aragua gang

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration cannot speed the deportations of migrants accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua using an 18th-century wartime law.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with immigrant rights lawyers and lower court judges who argued the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was not created to be used against gangs like Tren de Aragua.

"The Trump administration’s use of a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court," Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, said. "This is a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts."

The Alien Enemies Act was previously used only three times in U.S. history, and all came during declared wars in the War of 1812 and the two World Wars.

BOASBERG CLEARED TO RULE ON CECOT MIGRANT DEPORTATIONS AFTER APPEALS COURT DECISION

The Trump administration claimed that courts cannot second-guess the president's determination that Tren de Aragua was connected to Venezuela’s government and represented a danger to the U.S., which it argued warranted using the law.

The administration deported alleged Tren de Aragua members to a mega-prison in El Salvador where, officials argued, U.S. courts could not order their release.

More than 250 of the deported migrants returned to Venezuela under a deal announced in July.

In a 2-1 ruling, the court granted the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs because they "found no invasion or predatory incursion" in this case.

VIDEO SHOWS US MILITARY BLASTING DRUG BOAT, KILLING 11 SUSPECTED VENEZUELAN TREN DE ARAGUA NARCO-TERRORISTS

The court's ruling blocks deportations from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The majority opinion said Trump’s allegations about Tren de Aragua do not meet the historical levels of national conflict that Congress intended for when the law was approved.

"A country encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States," U.S. Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick and Irma Carrillo Ramirez wrote.

In a dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham argued that the majority was second-guessing Trump’s conduct in foreign affairs and national security, which are areas where courts often give the president great deference.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"The majority’s approach to this case is not only unprecedented—it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent," Oldham wrote.

The Trump administration secured one legal victory in Tuesday's ruling, with the judges finding the procedures officials use to advise detainees under the Alien Enemies Act about their legal rights are appropriate.

The ruling can be appealed to the full Fifth Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to make the ultimate decision in this case.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Grand juries in Washington, DC decline to indict two accused of threatening to kill Trump

Grand juries in Washington, D.C. refused to indict two people accused of threatening the life of President Donald Trump, prosecutors confirmed to Fox News Digital Tuesday.

Officials from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington said both cases involved threats against the president while jurors rejected charges, preventing the cases from moving forward to trial.

One case involved Nathalie Rose Jones, who is accused of posting online threats to assassinate Trump and later repeating those threats directly to Secret Service agents during an interview.

JEANINE PIRRO SHUTS DOWN REPORTERS QUESTIONING TRUMP’S DC CRIME CRACKDOWN

U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro, whose office pushed for the indictment, blasted the jury’s refusal on Tuesday.

"A Washington D.C. grand jury refused to indict someone who threatened to kill the President of the United States. Her intent was clear, traveling through five states to do so," Pirro told Fox News in an exclusive statement. 

"She even confirmed the same to the U.S. Secret Service. This is the essence of a politicized jury. The system here is broken on many levels. Instead of the outrage that should be engendered by a specific threat to kill the president, the grand jury in D.C. refuses to even let the judicial process begin. Justice should not depend on politics," Pirro added.

In a second case, another grand jury declined to indict Edward Alexander Dana, who allegedly threatened to kill Trump while being arrested last month on unrelated charges of vandalism in Northwest D.C.

TRUMP SAYS 'INCOMPETENT' ILLINOIS GOVERNOR, 'NO BETTER' CHICAGO MAYOR SHOULD CALL HIM FOR HELP WITH CRIME

According to charging documents, Dana told police he was intoxicated, admitted making the threat and described himself as a descendant of the Huguenots, French Protestants who waged rebellions in the 1600s.

Then, magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey denied a request by prosecutors to keep the jury’s decision sealed, ordering the disclosure of the "no true" bill to Dana’s attorney.

Dana’s defense attorney, Elizabeth Mullin, told Fox News Digital she had "never seen anything like it" in over 20 years of practice.

"This is the result of them taking weak cases and trying to shoehorn them into federal district court," Mullin said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Meanwhile, Pirro said grand juries in D.C. are politically motivated and unwilling to hold violent or threatening defendants accountable.

Last week, she told Fox News that residents were "so used to crime" that they’re increasingly unwilling to indict. 

On Tuesday, she called the decisions not to indict Jones and Dana "a sign the system is collapsing from within."

About Us

Virtus (virtue, valor, excellence, courage, character, and worth)

Vincit (conquers, triumphs, and wins)