Appeals Court Reviews Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act

A federal appeals court heard arguments on Monday regarding the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang. The Justice Department urged the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals to lift a judge’s temporary block on the removals, arguing that the administration’s proclamation should stand.

The nearly hour-long hearing saw intense questioning from two of the three judges, while the third remained silent. The central debate revolved around whether the individuals targeted under the act had due process rights and whether their legal challenges were being raised in the appropriate court.

Judge Raises Concerns Over Due Process

Judge Patricia Millett expressed deep concern over the lack of procedural safeguards in Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. She pointed out that individuals accused of gang affiliation were not given the opportunity to challenge their designation before being deported.

“There were planeloads of people deported without notice or hearings,” Millett remarked, emphasizing the absence of regulations governing the process. She argued that even individuals removed from the US decades ago under the same law had more rights, highlighting that past cases included hearing boards to assess claims before deportation.

When pressed on whether those facing deportation should be notified and given a chance to defend themselves, Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign pushed back. “Your honor, we don’t agree to the notice point,” he responded, stating that legal challenges could still be raised through habeas petitions.

Trump-Appointed Judge Questions Legal Strategy

Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, appeared to agree that individuals facing removal should have the ability to challenge their deportation but questioned whether this case should be handled in Washington, D.C. He suggested that those affected should pursue their claims in the courts where they are being detained.

Walker repeatedly stressed that while the right to challenge removal exists, it must be done in the proper venue. “The right court is in Texas, not here,” he said, indicating that legal challenges should be filed at a local level rather than through a broad federal appeal.

However, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt countered that such an approach would be unworkable. He warned that if the lower court’s block was lifted, many individuals would be deported before they had the opportunity to file legal challenges. Gelernt also pointed out that many of the affected individuals had no proven connection to the gang in question.

The Push for a More Orderly Legal Process

Gelernt argued that keeping the temporary block in place would allow time for the district court to develop a complete factual record before the case returned to the appeals court. He emphasized that this was only the fourth time in US history that the Alien Enemies Act had been invoked, and that no war had been declared—a key distinction from past uses of the law.

He further contended that since the case was still in its early stages, new evidence could emerge that might shift the legal landscape. Allowing immediate deportations, he said, could undermine the entire legal process.

What Comes Next?

Regardless of the appeals court’s decision, the losing side is expected to take the case to the Supreme Court. Judge Walker even asked whether the appeals court should delay its ruling to allow time for a Supreme Court review before any deportations take place.

“If that were going to happen, I would hope your honors would give us time to seek a stay at the Supreme Court before anyone is put on a plane,” Gelernt responded.

With the lower court’s temporary block set to expire on Saturday, a decision from the appeals court is expected soon. The case could have far-reaching implications, shaping how wartime authorities are applied to immigration enforcement in the future.