Judge rules Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act for deportations is lawful
by Sheri Walsh · UPIMay 13 (UPI) -- A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump's use of a wartime authority to deport Venezuelan gang members is lawful, but accused the administration of moving too quickly.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee, upheld the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act after he proclaimed in March that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was mounting a violent "incursion" into the United States. Haines' ruling comes after two other judges recently barred Trump from using the AEA for deportations.
In making her decision, Haines pointed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio's designation of Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization. Haines described the group as "bent on destabilizing the United States" and "flooding the United States with illegal narcotics" to be used as "weapons" against U.S. citizens.
The judge wrote that while the military invasions when the AEA was passed in 1798 are not the same, she said old statutes can be applied to current developments. She ruled Trump's proclamation meets the definition of "predatory incursion" under the wartime act.
While Haines sided with Trump, she ordered the administration to "provide greater notice to those subject to removal under the AEA than they are currently providing." She said the administration cannot deport one unnamed Venezuelan man, being held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, unless he is given 21 days notice -- in both English and Spanish -- and be given "an opportunity to be heard."
Tuesday's ruling is a victory for the Trump administration's use of the AEA, after judges in New York and Texas both ruled against the president and declared Tren de Aragua was not a government-backed "incursion."
The AEA has been used three times during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. Haines ruled the wartime authority can be used again under current circumstances.
"In resolving those issues, this court's unflagging obligation is to apply the law as written," Haines wrote in her conclusion.
"The court now leaves it to the political branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals to decide whether the laws and those who execute them to continue to reflect their will."