A federal appeals court ruled on September 2 that the Trump administration cannot use an 18th-century law to quickly deport suspected gang members.

Its decision largely hinged on the administration’s assertion that the Venezuela-based gang Tren de Aragua had invaded the United States.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 items

end of list

“Applying our obligation to interpret the (Alien Enemies Act), we conclude that the findings do not support that an invasion or a predatory incursion has occurred,” the ruling said.

The conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 decision effectively blocks the government from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act’s fast-track process to deport people it says belong to the gang. Such an invasion or incursion is a necessary condition for the US to deport people using the law.

Here are five things to know about the Alien Enemies Act, the court’s ruling and what could come next:

How did the Trump administration use the law before the ruling?

On March 15, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which lets the president detain and deport people from a “hostile nation or government” without a hearing when the US is either at war with that country or the country has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” an invasion or raid legally called a “predatory incursion” against the US.

That same day, the Trump administration deported more than 230 Venezuelan men to the Center for Terrorism Confinement, or CECOT, a maximum-security El Salvador prison. An investigation by ProPublica and other news organisations found the vast majority of the men had no criminal records. And none of the men’s names appeared in a list of alleged gang members kept by Venezuelan law enforcement and international law enforcement agency Interpol.

Advertisement

In July, as part of a prisoner exchange between the US and Venezuela, the men deported from the US and held in CECOT were returned to Venezuela.

Several legal challenges followed after Trump’s invocation of the law. But the September 2 appellate court’s ruling is the first to address whether Trump legally invoked it.

What did the appeals court say about an invasion?

The court said Tren de Aragua has not invaded or carried out a predatory incursion against the US.

The appellate court disagreed with Trump’s March assertion that “evidence irrefutably demonstrates that (Tren de Aragua) has invaded the United States.” To determine whether Tren de Aragua had invaded or carried out a predatory incursion, the court had to define what each of those terms meant.

“We define an invasion for purposes of the (Alien Enemies Act) as an act of war involving the entry into this country by a military force of or at least directed by another country or nation, with a hostile intent,” the ruling said.

As for a predatory incursion, the court said the term “described armed forces of some size and cohesion, engaged in something less than an invasion, whose objectives could vary widely, and are directed by a foreign government or nation”.

The court ruled that a country “encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organised force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States”.

The court said the mass migration of Venezuelan immigrants did not constitute an armed or an organised force.

Was any part of the ruling favourable to the Trump administration?

The court said it does not have the power to rule on the accuracy of the information the Trump administration presented about how closely Tren de Aragua is tied to the Venezuelan government led by President Nicolas Maduro.

But the court ruled that Tren de Aragua can be considered a government or nation for the law’s purposes, assuming Trump’s assertion is true that the group is being led by the Venezuelan government.

Nevertheless, the court ruled, there’s no invasion.

Trump’s assertion about the Maduro administration’s links to Tren de Aragua was contradicted by an intelligence community assessment.

“While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables (Tren de Aragua) to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States,” the National Intelligence Council said in an April report.

Advertisement

In May, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired two National Intelligence Council officials who wrote the assessment, according to The Washington Post.

What did the court say about due process?

The appellate court said, based on available information, an updated process the government is using to inform people they will be deported under the law seemed to follow due process requirements. However, it asked the lower federal court to rule on what constitutes sufficient government notice.

In May, before the government updated its notification process, the US Supreme Court ruled in an unsigned opinion that the Trump administration hadn’t given immigrants who it said it would deport under the Alien Enemies Act enough time to exercise their due process rights.

At the time, the government had given immigrants about 24 hours’ notice that they would be deported without information about how to contest the deportation. The Supreme Court asked the appellate court to determine how much notice is necessary for the government to uphold immigrants’ constitutional due process rights.

While the case was being decided by the appellate court, the Trump administration updated the document it gives immigrants as notice that they will be deported under the law. Part of the change included giving immigrants seven days to challenge the deportation.

What will likely happen next?

The appellate court’s decision stops Alien Enemies Act deportations in the three states in its jurisdiction: Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Other courts could use the ruling as precedent in their decisions.

The Trump administration can appeal the appellate court ruling either to the full appeals court or to the US Supreme Court. The White House didn’t specify whether it would appeal or to which court.

“The authority to conduct national security operations in defence of the United States and to remove terrorists from the United States rests solely with the president,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said. “We expect to be vindicated on the merits in this case.”