Trump administration faces legal challenge over alien enemies act usage
- An amicus brief was submitted in the Fifth Circuit opposing the use of the Alien Enemies Act.
- The brief argues the Act is only applicable during declared wars or invasions, not in peacetime situations.
- Legal experts worry about the consequences of allowing this invocation, potentially threatening legal protections for immigrants.
In a significant legal challenge, an amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the Trump Administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The brief was submitted in the case of W.M.M. v. Trump, highlighting concerns over the use of this wartime authority for peacetime detention and deportation of immigrants. Filed on behalf of multiple organizations including the Brennan Center for Justice and the Cato Institute, the brief argues that the Act was intended for wartime situations and should not apply to the current context concerning civil matters not involving acts of war. The Alien Enemies Act, enacted during a period of international tensions, allows for the detention or expulsion of non-citizens identified as 'alien enemies' during times of declared war or invasions. Legal scholars emphasize that the recent application of this law falls well outside its established parameters, specifically addressing the government’s claim related to the Venezuelan drug gang Tren de Aragua being designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The authors of the brief assert that this designation does not equate to an act of war and thus invalidates the justification for invoking the AEA in a peacetime scenario. Among the brief’s signatories are prominent law-of-war scholars, underscoring the collaborative effort of ideological opponents in critiquing the executive branch's overreach. The brief calls for the courts to maintain oversight over the executive actions, asserting that without it, there are significant risks of presidential overreach that could endanger legal immigrants and compromise judicial protections such as the writ of habeas corpus. The implications of this case signal a crucial examination of executive power in the realm of immigration and national security, with plans to file similar briefs in other related cases indicating a broader legal strategy to challenge the interpretation of the AEA in contemporary governance. The legal community is closely monitoring the evolution of this case due to its potential impact on the balance of powers and the rights of immigrants, legal and otherwise, within the United States.