On Wednesday, a panel from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1, allowing two lower court orders that prevent Trump from exercising this broad wartime authority to remain in effect while a legal challenge regarding the president’s application of the law is ongoing.
Since the orders were issued on March 15 by US District Judge James Boasberg, they have sparked significant legal and political debate. Concerns have arisen regarding whether Boasberg’s court order was intentionally ignored, particularly after two flights carrying individuals deported under the act departed during an emergency hearing and did not return. Boasberg and the Justice Department have since been in dispute over the DOJ’s unwillingness to disclose further information about these flights, while Trump has called for Boasberg’s impeachment, prompting a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.
To facilitate the deportation of migrants alleged to be part of the Tren de Aragua gang, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which provides the president with considerable authority to target and expel undocumented immigrants. This law is designed for use during wartime or in situations where a foreign nation has invaded or threatened to invade the United States.
The appeals court’s ruling on Wednesday was unsigned. However, Judges Karen Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, and Patricia Millett, appointed by former President Barack Obama, provided detailed opinions explaining their support for the court’s decision.As the proceedings progressed, Henderson underscored the assertion that allowing Trump to enforce the law “risks sending plaintiffs to a country that is not their homeland,” where they could face torture in notorious prisons.
Henderson noted, “During oral arguments before this Court, the government clearly indicated that if the injunction were lifted, it would commence deportations of plaintiffs without any prior notification.” The plaintiffs allege that in its efforts against TdA, the government has unlawfully detained innocent individuals. One plaintiff, for example, asserts that he endured extreme torture, including “electric shocks and suffocation,” due to his protests against the Venezuelan government.
Judge Justin Walker, appointed by Trump during his first term, concentrated his dissent on a procedural issue he raised during the oral arguments of the case. Walker argued that the claims of those who were deported should be addressed in a Texas court rather than one in Washington, DC. “The district court’s orders pose a risk of irreparable damage to sensitive negotiations with foreign entities regarding national security matters,” he remarked, referencing the Trump administration.
Walker contended that the plaintiffs’ desire to file the lawsuit in Washington is outweighed by the potential harm “along with the claimed public interest in the prompt removal of dangerous aliens.”
It is expected that the Trump administration will seek to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. Early in the proceedings, the Justice Department contested Boasberg’s orders. Following a more detailed ruling from the judge on the merits of Trump’s application of the wartime law for these deportations, the case is likely to return to the DC Circuit in the coming weeks.
In articulating her rationale for wanting to uphold the disputed orders, Millett seemed particularly focused on the case’s overall context.The district court has approached this case with meticulous attention and prudence, and its directives are intended solely to preserve the current situation until substantial and unprecedented legal matters can be addressed in the forthcoming preliminary injunction hearing, she noted.
Millett emphasized that endorsing the administration at this juncture would effectively nullify the Plaintiffs’ claims by placing them beyond the reach of their legal representatives or the court.
She also criticized the Trump administration’s assertion that it had not violated Boasberg’s bench order from earlier this month, which mandated the immediate reversal of any aircraft transporting migrants being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. DOJ attorneys have informed Boasberg that his written order, issued shortly after the proceedings commenced, is the authoritative ruling in this case, and that his verbal directive “did not constitute a binding injunction.”
The written order did not include any language concerning the aircraft; instead, it affirmed that the judge’s temporary restraining orders remained in effect and that the administration was barred from deporting the migrants in light of Trump’s proclamation invoking the law.
Millett remarked, “I allow the district court to evaluate the merits of that argument initially.” She added, “It is entirely unacceptable for the government to request this court to stay an order while simultaneously asserting to the district court that compliance was never necessary.” She further stated, “The district court cannot obtain the extraordinary relief of a TRO stay if the government prevails and the district court does not.”
