Judge Boasberg has sought details about the timing of the flights and the identities of those on board. However, the Trump administration contends that revealing this information would jeopardize “diplomatic and national security interests.”
Additionally, on the same day, government lawyers urged an appeals court to reverse Judge Boasberg’s ruling and permit the continuation of deportations for Venezuelan migrants. This appeal seemed to divide the panel of judges, as reported by The Associated Press. During the proceedings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Patricia Millett noted that even Nazis detained in the U.S. during World War II received superior legal protections compared to the Venezuelan migrants recently sent to El Salvador under the same law.
“We certainly dispute the Nazi analogy,” countered Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign.
The administration has already deported hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, marking the first application of the Alien Enemies Act since World War II. Following Judge Boasberg’s order to halt deportations and mandate the return of Venezuelan immigrants to the U.S., the administration filed an appeal, asserting that the planes were already in international airspace at that time.
The Act permits the deportation of noncitizens without the necessity of appearing before an immigration or federal court judge. President Trump issued a proclamation designating the Tren de Aragua gang as an invading force and a terrorist organization.Ensign contended that Boasberg’s decision represented an “unprecedented and significant encroachment on the authority of the Executive Branch.”
“The president is required to adhere to the Constitution and the laws just like any other individual,” stated Millett.
Judge Justin Walker, appointed by Trump in 2020, seemed more receptive to the administration’s arguments during his questioning. He emphasized the government’s assertion that the plaintiffs should have initiated their lawsuit in Texas, where the immigrants were being held.
“You could have submitted the same complaint you filed here in the Texas district court,” Walker remarked to Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.
“We have no way of knowing if everyone is in Texas,” Gelernt responded. Legal analyst and attorney Gregg Jarrett pointed out in a column published online last week that a prior Supreme Court ruling established that not only is the Act constitutional, but federal courts lack the authority to intervene when a president invokes it.
“The AEA allows a president to order the arrest and removal of ‘alien enemies’ without a court hearing during a declared war or in response to any ‘predatory incursion’ against the United States,” Jarrett explained. He further elaborated that “a predatory incursion” is broadly defined as entry into the U.S. for purposes that conflict with the nation’s interests or laws, granting the president considerable discretion in fulfilling his primary responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the populace.
In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Truman’s application of the AEA, ruling that the law itself was constitutional (Ludecke v. Watkins, 33 US 160). Notably, the Supreme Court indicated that a president’s decision under the Act “precludes judicial review of the removal order.” This means that a judge cannot question the president’s judgment. The court clarified, “The very nature of the President’s power to order the removal of all enemy aliens negates the idea that courts may evaluate the decision.”The ruling of the Supreme Court acknowledged the principle known as the “political question doctrine.” This principle asserts that federal courts are prohibited from interfering in presidential decisions that are fundamentally political, including matters related to foreign affairs and national security. Similarly, judges are not authorized to stop drone strikes or terminate intelligence operations.
