Heidi Li FeldmanAnother federal district court has ruled unlawful Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) designating as alien enemies Venezuelan immigrants purportedly belonging to TdA gang. 1/ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640153/gov.uscourts.nysd.640153.84.0.pdf
Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York begins his opinion by quoting the Declaration of Independence - “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [and] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness“ - and noting that the Constitution’s guarantee of due process embodies this principle. 2/
Hellerstein quickly cuts to the plight of the more than 200 people Trump et al removed to El Salvador “with faint hope of process or return.” They were taken to CECOT, “there to remain, indefinitely, in a notoriously evil jail, unable to communicate with counsel, family or friends.” 3/
Hellerstein points out that the Trump executive completely ignored the provision of the Alien Enemies Act that imposes a duty on the federal judiciary to ‘“give a “full examination and hearing” to the Executive’s “complaint” against the alien, and to order the alien’s removal only upon “sufficient cause appearing.” 50 U.S.C. § 23.’ 4/
Hellerstein focuses much of his opinion on the Trump executive branch failing to abide by the requirement imposed by the AEA: a requirement to file in an Article III court (the type of court established by the Constitution as opposed to an immigration court ) a complaint against specific alleged aliens. This is what would count as notice. Court would then hold hearing to assess sufficiency of cause for removal. 5/
Tuckers Nuts Resist! 🇺🇦 This is fascinating. At least one other judge invalidated Trump’s AEA proclamation solely on the ground that there has been no invasion of or incursion into the U.S. by the military forces of a foreign government. That judge, in the Southern District of Texas, did not address the part of the AEA that explicitly assigns to the federal judiciary a notice and hearing role. 6/
“The notice proposed by Respondents does not moot this issue. Petitioners have not been given notice of what they allegedly did to join TdA, when they joined, and what they did in the United States, or anywhere else, to share or further the illicit objectives of the TdA. Without such proof, Petitioners are subject to removal by the Executive’s dictate alone, in contravention of the AEA and the Constitutional requirements of due process.” 7/
Hellerstein applies a test from Mathews v. Eldridge, a pivotal due process U.S. Supreme Court case from 1976, to assess whether the Constitution and the AEA require full scale judicial involvement in deportations pursuant to the AEA. Because the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty via imprisonment is so serious, Hellerstein answers in the affirmative. In other words… 8/
… even though it is a big hassle for the executive branch to have to file individual complaints in court against people it classifies as deportable aliens under the AEA and then prove in a hearing that the classification is appropriate, that is what a guarantee of due process requires in these circumstances. 9/
Hellerstein notes that Trump’s Proclamation empowered the executive branch beyond what the AEA, and therefore Congress, authorizes. The Proclamation rewrites language from the AEA saying that presidential proclamation can make aliens “liable to removal.” In contrast, Trump’s proclamation made people “subject to immediate removal.” 10/
In another portion of his opinion, Hellerstein discusses the issue covered by Judge Fernandez of the Southern District of Texas when he invalidated Trump’s use of the AEA. Like Fernandez, Hellerstein rejects Trump’s claim that a presidential invocation of the AEA is unreviewable by a federal court. 11/
Also like Fernandez, Hellerstein concludes that the plain meaning of the AEA’s invasion and incursion language rules out Trump’s classification of TdA’s conduction as either. “TdA may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking, but that is a criminal matter, not an invasion or predatory incursion.” 12/
So, both procedurally and substantively, Trump’s Presidential Proclamation fails to satisfy the AEA. It is unlawful. Hence, Hellerstein enjoins anybody in or connected to the executive branch from enforcing Trump’s Proclamation. 13/
Such an injunction while further proceedings take place is warranted by the irreparable harm otherwise risked. “Here, absent a preliminary injunction, Petitioners would be removed from the United States to CECOT, where they would endure abuse and inhumane treatment with no recourse to bring them back. If that is not irreparable harm, what is?” 14/
The habeas proceedings for the Venezuelans detained in the Southern District of New York per Trump’s AEA Proclamation will still proceed. Presumably, though, the Venezuelans detained as alien enemies will win release from immigration detention in Hellerstein’s court, per his invalidation of the Proclamation’s treatment of TdA. 15/
Note Hellerstein’s opinion would not apply were the Trump executive to seek to deport the detained Venezuelans per the Immigration and Nationalization Act, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227. But if the Trump executive does go that route, it must follow the procedures laid down by the INA, which provide for notice and hearing. 16/16
david jon furbish@heidilifeldman
thanks (again) for your clear explanation
thanks (again) for your clear explanation
Chuck@heidilifeldman So presumably they side stepped the INA for that very reason (they didn't want to have hearings). I'm surprised that none of the Democrats are pointing out that the immigration bill Trump killed would have significantly boosted the number of judges who could hear immigration cases and speed this up.
Thanks again Heidi!
Steve Hersey@heidilifeldman
The ruling is a real corker. The judge pulls no punches. Thanks for the link, and also for the beautifully readable summary.
The ruling is a real corker. The judge pulls no punches. Thanks for the link, and also for the beautifully readable summary.
@n1xnx You’re most welcome.
James M.@heidilifeldman would this also apply to the flights possibly going to Libya as early as tomorrow? And to any other renditions to foreign countries?
@jamesmarshall Haven’t seen the news about these flights. Hellerstein’s injunction applies only to AEA detainees held in Southern District of New York. There is a similar injunction in effect in Southern District of Texas. Do you have a link to news coverage or other reliable source?
@heidilifeldman here's a NYT article, along with a thread from @Nonilex .
Nonilex (@Nonilex@masto.ai)
#Trump Admin Plans to Send Migrants to #Libya on a #Military Flight #HumanRights groups have called conditions in the country’s network of migrant #detention centers “horrific” & “deplorable.” #law #immigration #Constitution #DueProcess #Rendition #StateSponsoredAbduction #CivilRights #ExecutiveOverreach #AbuseOfPower https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/us/politics/trump-libya-migrants.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=p&pvid=76A42B13-CE0C-465C-833A-19E7FDFD950C
@jamesmarshall Thx. No info about bases of these deportations, which COULD be pursuant to INA removal proceedings properly conducted, rather than to AEA. Whether INA would allow imprisonment outside the U.S. in awful conditions is not a question courts have settled.
Also, no info about where in U.S. these deportees were detained prior to removal. Injunctions against AEA removals now cover Colorado, southern district of TX and southern district of NY.
@heidilifeldman OK, thanks for the explanation.
fmc01@heidilifeldman If you need to ask the question ……..