U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. ruled on Thursday that President Donald Trump and his administration could not use the Alien Enemies Act to uphold the deportations of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador.
Rodriguez stated that the Act — first enacted in 1798 — did not apply unless the United States was facing an “armed, organized attack,” and argued that the influx of illegal alien gang members and terrorists did not meet that particular qualification.
“The Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful. [Administration officials] do not possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country,” he wrote in his decision.
The Trump administration argued that Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua, a “designated Foreign Terrorist Organization[,] . . . is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States,” and based on that, “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.”
Rodriguez disagreed, however, but he did leave room for recourse: he also noted in his ruling that once the court determined the definition of “invasion” or “incursion,” the administration would be free to present any evidence they believed showed such and “invasion” or “incursion” had, in fact, occurred.
Some issues that Petitioners raise present a political question beyond judicial review. Once a court defines the parameters of what conduct constitutes an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” for purposes of the AEA, the court leaves to the Executive Branch the determination of whether such conduct has been perpetrated, attempted, or threatened. For example, a court may decide that one aspect of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” requires physical entry into the United States.
In other words, a court may conclude that no invasion or predatory incursion has occurred or has been threatened if the alleged conduct does not involve the entry of individuals into the country. The court having determined the meaning of these terms, it is left to the Executive Branch to determine whether a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated activity that includes such an entry. As to this decision, the court may not delve into whether the Executive Branch possesses sufficient support for its conclusion, or whether the court agrees with the Executive Branch’s determinations.
