Two US federal court judges issued separate rulings Tuesday, both blocking President Donald Trump’s attempts to deport individuals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA). The rulings temporarily enjoin the US government from invoking the AEA to deport the petitioners and members of their class in Colorado and New York.
Colorado District Court Judge Charlotte Sweeney granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the petitioners, who are civil immigration detainees, on the grounds that members of the class would face a “sufficient risk of wrongful and harmful deportation” under the AEA. Similarly, New York District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled in favor of the petitioners by granting a preliminary injunction because “mandating removal without due process” contravenes the AEA.
In Colorado, Judge Sweeney rejected each of the arguments of the respondents. The respondents, President Trump and members of his administration, argued that the petitioners lacked standing and raised several jurisdictional issues. The respondents argued that the petitioners are not under an “actual and imminent” threat since they are not subject to the proclamation. However, Judge Sweeney disagreed and found there is a risk of harm that the petitioners will be subject to the proclamation. The respondents raised a jurisdictional issue by arguing that the court lacks the “ability to ‘scrutinize’ the President’s ‘authority and discretion'” under the AEA. The court found this argument “unpersuasive” since what the petitioners are asking the court to do is judicially review the proclamation and the AEA, which is not an infringement on presidential authority.
In New York, Judge Hellerstein concluded that the petitioners, who filed a writ of habeus corpus, “made the requisite showing for a preliminary injunction.” Additionally, Judge Hellerstein found that the AEA can only be invoked in two situations: when war has been declared or if there is an invasion. Trump relied on an alleged invasion by the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) criminal organization to invoke the AEA in his proclamation; however, when interpreting the AEA, Judge Hellerstein determined that the plain language meanings of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” found in the AEA “do not exist” in this case. He reasoned that the “TdA may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking,” but these acts do not amount to an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” Therefore, the respondents were enjoined from enforcing the AEA since the proclamation “exceeds the scope.”
The New York court previously granted a temporary restraining order, which blocked respondents Trump and his administration from deporting the petitioners under the proclamation. The preliminary injunction functions similarly by preventing the respondents from using the proclamation in the Southern District of New York to deport the petitioners.
Human rights leaders have expressed concern over President Trump’s use of the AEA to deport Venezuelan and Salvadoran men. UN human rights experts released a statement early this month over concerns for due process. The statement refers to several international law instruments, including the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to support its position since the US is party to that treaty.
Human Rights Watch issued a report urging the US to repeal the AEA, arguing that the US has critical obligations under international law that the act is incompatible with. For example, the right to due process and freedom from discrimination are enshrined in these treaties and create obligations on the US to respect.
In mid-March, Trump named Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization in a proclamation and allowed the invocation of the AEA to deport Venezuelan citizens with alleged membership in TdA. This led to a series of legal challenges, which remain ongoing.
