In a legal battle that is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, Immigration and administration lawyers debated on Monday the validity of President Donald Trump’s use of an 18th-century wartime act against a Venezuelan gang. The attorneys clashed before a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, the latest step in a convoluted legal dispute over Trump’s invocation in March of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the Tren de Aragua gang. This law, primarily utilized during World Wars I and II, as well as the War of 1812, has now been invoked in connection with a gang, raising concerns. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt argued that Trump’s use of this act is unprecedented and inappropriate given its historical usage. On the other hand, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign contended that the president’s decision should not be questioned, emphasizing the need for extraordinary measures to protect the U.S. from foreign threats.
Trump’s invocation of this act has faced legal challenges, leading to multiple hearings at the highest court. The Supreme Court has issued rulings on technicalities regarding challenges to deportations under the act and the time frame for appealing such designations. The current debate centers on the appropriate timeline for individuals to challenge their status as Tren de Aragua gang members, with the government proposing a seven-day window and the ACLU advocating for 30 days, similar to the period granted to suspected Nazis during World War II.
The panel overseeing Monday’s arguments consisted of judges appointed by Trump, former President George W. Bush, and President Biden. Their decision can be appealed within the 5th Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. Trump alleges that the gang is acting on behalf of Venezuela’s government, justifying the use of the Alien Enemies Act, which permits action against “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” However, the ACLU contests this assertion, highlighting the limited evidence of direct coordination between the gang and the Venezuelan government based on intelligence reports.
Gelernt argued that, according to the criteria set by the administration, the AEA could have been applied against the mafia or any other criminal group with connections to foreign countries that has been active in the United States for the past two centuries.
