Judge orders release of Venezuelan couple accused of being ‘alien enemies’

[FreeinChrist]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/26/ice-deportation-alien-enemies-act/

A U.S. district court judge has ordered two Venezuelan nationals living in D.C. to be released from immigration custody, saying the federal government has failed to provide substantial evidence to declare either of them was an “alien enemy” warranting removal under President Donald Trump’s order invoking the Alien Enemies Act.​

​

The decision, issued Friday by El Paso-based Senior U.S. District Judge David Briones, marks the first time a judge has ruled that the Trump administration had erred in classifying someone as an “alien enemy” and ordered a release. Many of the relatives and attorneys for men the Trump administration has sent to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act have strongly denied that they are Tren de Aragua gang members. The Supreme Court ruled that the government needed to give anyone labeled an “alien enemy” a chance to contest that designation.​

​

The judge in El Paso also went a step further in specifying that going forward, the government must provide detainees 21 days to contest their status, and they must be given a notice in a language they can understand. The Trump administration, in a separate case, recently shared a sample notification form, in which those labeled “alien enemies” were given 12 hours to state whether they planned to contest that designation.​

Part of due process is giving detainees 21 days to contest their status. Imagine that.

 

[wing2000]

A second judge from Texas weighed in today:

A federal judge on Thursday permanently barred the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law, to deport Venezuelans it has deemed to be criminals from the Southern District of Texas, saying that the White House’s use of the statute was illegal.

The decision by the judge, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., was the most expansive ruling yet by any of the numerous jurists who are currently hearing challenges to the White House’s efforts to employ the powerful but rarely invoked law as part of its wide-ranging deportation plans.

Texas Judge Strikes Down Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Venezuelans

The ruling, which is limited to the Southern District of Texas, prohibited the administration from using the wartime law because the president’s claims about a Venezuelan gang do not add up to an “invasion.”

www.nytimes.com

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.58.0_1.pdf

 

[rambot]

help me out. Didn't the supreme court already say that trump could use that thingy?

 

[wing2000]

From the ruling:

Role of the courts to interpret...

"The President cannot summarily declare that a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated an invasion or predatory incursion of the United States, followed by the identification of the alien enemies subject to detention or removal. Cf. United States v. Abbott, 110 F.4th 700, 736 (5th Cir. 2024) (“To be sure, a state of invasion under Article I, section 10 does not exist just because a State official has uttered certain magic words.”) (Ho, J., concurring). Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA, and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the AEA, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope."

Predatory invasion / incursion...

"To augment the parties’ submissions, the Court reviewed numerous historical records using “invasion,” “predatory incursion,” and “incursion” for the period from 1780 through 1820. See Appendix A (identifying records and providing links).9 The review strongly supported the Petitioners’ position. In the significant majority of the records, the use of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” referred to an attack by military forces. This held true even when the historical record did not concern the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. The usages of “predatory incursion” at times referred to entries by Native Americans into the western territories, as did usages of “incursion.” But even these records refer to an organized group of armed individuals entering an area to attack a fort, settlement, or town, and the writer typically discussed the need for a military response to the entry. In only a few sources did the use of “invasion” or “predatory incursion” reference a non-military action. While the Court does not represent that its review constitutes a vigorous corpus linguistics analysis, the results provide a significant level of confidence that a complete review would generate similar conclusions."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.58.0_1.pdf

 

[rambot]

From the ruling:

Role of the courts to interpret...

"The President cannot summarily declare that a foreign nation or government has threatened or perpetrated an invasion or predatory incursion of the United States, followed by the identification of the alien enemies subject to detention or removal. Cf. United States v. Abbott, 110 F.4th 700, 736 (5th Cir. 2024) (“To be sure, a state of invasion under Article I, section 10 does not exist just because a State official has uttered certain magic words.”) (Ho, J., concurring). Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA, and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the AEA, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope."

Predatory invasion / incursion...

"To augment the parties’ submissions, the Court reviewed numerous historical records using “invasion,” “predatory incursion,” and “incursion” for the period from 1780 through 1820. See Appendix A (identifying records and providing links).9 The review strongly supported the Petitioners’ position. In the significant majority of the records, the use of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” referred to an attack by military forces. This held true even when the historical record did not concern the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. The usages of “predatory incursion” at times referred to entries by Native Americans into the western territories, as did usages of “incursion.” But even these records refer to an organized group of armed individuals entering an area to attack a fort, settlement, or town, and the writer typically discussed the need for a military response to the entry. In only a few sources did the use of “invasion” or “predatory incursion” reference a non-military action. While the Court does not represent that its review constitutes a vigorous corpus linguistics analysis, the results provide a significant level of confidence that a complete review would generate similar conclusions."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.58.0_1.pdf

I remember posters here on CF saying these exact things when all this started.

Because in those times there was a tangible danger.

Nowadays there is paranoid fear of coloured people and claims that they are all killing, raping and pillaging.

It's a virtually baseless fear (and relative to other fears, baseless)...fabricated base on lily white sensibilties and frailties. It's like ....a pretend target, put on themselves.

 

[wing2000]

help me out. Didn't the supreme court already say that trump could use that thingy?

...it's hard to keep up.
I'm going to be lazy and rely on AI (this sounds correct):

The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, but later lifted that block. The court's action was related to challenges to the administration's use of the law, particularly regarding due process and notice requirements.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

help me out. Didn't the supreme court already say that trump could use that thingy?

Technically, they haven't made a ruling on the matter. In the one case that has reached them so far, they granted a stay that allowed the administration to continue using the Alien Enemies Act (but also requires that anyone deported under the AEA be given the opportunity to contest deportation) while that case proceeds.

 

[rambot]

Technically, they haven't made a ruling on the matter. In the one case that has reached them so far, they granted a stay that allowed the administration to continue using the Alien Enemies Act (but also requires that anyone deported under the AEA be given the opportunity to contest deportation) while that case proceeds.

Thanks....that sounds right.

 

[DaisyDay]

Link (pdf) to Ruling

Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Venezuelans

The ruling, which is limited to the Southern District of Texas, prohibited the administration from using the wartime law because the president’s claims about a Venezuelan gang do not add up to an “invasion.”

A federal judge on Thursday permanently barred the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law, to deport Venezuelans it has deemed to be criminals from the Southern District of Texas, saying that the White House’s use of the statute was illegal.

The decision by the judge, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., was the most expansive ruling yet by any of the numerous jurists who are currently hearing challenges to the White House’s efforts to employ the powerful but rarely invoked law as part of its wide-ranging deportation plans.​

Judge in Texas rules Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act for deportations 'exceeds the scope' of the law

A judge has blocked the Trump administration from detaining or removing Venezuelans targeted for deportation under the Alien Enemies Act in Texas' southern district.

abcnews.go.com

A Trump-appointed federal judge has permanently blocked the Trump administration from detaining, transferring or removing Venezuelans targeted for deportation under the Alien Enemies Act in the Southern District of Texas -- ruling that the administration's invocation of the AEA "exceeds the scope" of the law.

The ruling marks the first time a federal judge has declared President Donald Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act unlawful, with the judge rebuking the president's claim that the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua is invading the United States.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Fernandez Rodriguez, only applies to AEA-based deportations and does not prevent the government from detaining or seeking the deportation of individuals under the Immigration and Nationality Act.​