A high-stakes legal battle over the Trump administration's controversial deportation flights reaches a pivotal moment in the appeals court.
According to NewsNation, a three-judge panel heard oral arguments Monday regarding the administration's use of an 18th-century wartime law to deport migrants without hearings, as a temporary restraining order remains in effect.
The heated courtroom exchange lasted nearly two hours, with judges expressing skepticism about the government's implementation of the Alien Enemies Act. Judge James Boasberg's previous ruling against the administration highlighted concerns about potential mistaken deportations and the lack of individual hearings for those accused of gang affiliation.
The Justice Department's presentation exceeded its scheduled time by 50 minutes as government lawyers defended their position. They characterized Boasberg's order as unprecedented and an attempt to restrict presidential war powers.
The appeals panel, consisting of Judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Justin Walker, pressed government officials about the lack of due process. One judge drew a stark comparison, noting that even Nazi defendants received more procedural rights than the current deportees.
Border czar Tom Homan defended the administration's stance, dismissing critical judges as "out of touch" and "ridiculous." The government's reluctance to provide flight information has further complicated the legal proceedings.
The Alien Enemies Act, dating back to 1798, has only been invoked three times in American history. Its most notable use authorized the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, an action for which the government later apologized.
President Trump's application of the act specifically targets alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The order affects Venezuelans aged 14 and older who are suspected of gang affiliation.
Legal experts question the administration's interpretation, pointing out that immigration has not traditionally qualified as an invasion. They also emphasize that the act typically requires a congressional declaration of war.
Three deportation flights landed in El Salvador despite Boasberg's verbal order to halt such operations. The administration maintains these flights had already entered international airspace when the written order was issued.
The Department of Justice has considered invoking "state secrets" privilege to withhold information about the flights. This development follows Boasberg's criticism of the "woefully insufficient" information provided by the administration.
Venezuela has resumed accepting deportation flights after Trump revoked their oil export license. This diplomatic arrangement emerged despite existing U.S. sanctions against the country.
The Trump administration's attempt to deport Venezuelan migrants using an 18th-century wartime law has sparked intense legal scrutiny. The appeals court must now decide whether Judge Boasberg's court can review these deportations and if individuals deserve hearings before removal. The outcome will determine the fate of the administration's deportation program and establish precedent for the use of historical wartime powers in immigration enforcement.
