A quick take on some of the questions raised by President Trump's ... dubious invocation of a 1798 statute as a basis for arresting, detaining, and removing non-citizens with ties to Tren de Aragua.
Thanks for this impressive and, under the time constraints, very comprehensive overview of the issues raised by Trump's Executive Order. I would expect DOJ to press very hard on the President's foreign relations powers and national security discretion, in order to invoke some creditable doctrine of judicial deference and non-review. The Administration certainly has some chance at getting the Court of Appeals it wants, and already has three or four votes at the Supreme Court for a hands-off deference to a unitary and near-plenary presidency. Thinking ahead -- because ahead we are going -- where might a SCOTUS majority stand on these issues??
Whatever deference might have been due any proclamation by any prior president, it definitely is not due this president.
Trump is profoundly different from any president before him in ways that reflect on his credibility and whether he's acting in good faith. He cannot be voted out of office (or re-elected). He almost certainly will not be impeached again by the House, much less convicted and removed by the Senate. He apparently could not care less about the Republican party or conservatives, generally. And, most compelling, six SCOTUS justices--for the first time in our nation's history--proclaimed that Trump (and everybody he grants pardons to) cannot be prosecuted for any of the federal crimes they commit in their wild and egregious abuses and usurpations of power.
After SCOTUS usurped the power to pretend that we delegated to SCOTUS the power to make presidents "immune" from prosecution for criminal abuses and usurpations of power, Trump campaigned for control of America's nuclear arsenal by proclaiming “If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country — in this case, Iran — that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens. We are going to blow it to smithereens.”
Trump (even as president) has a long and well-known history of tossing about wildly excessive proclamations, implications and threats as a negotiating tactic. He did it on and before January 6. In another example a mere month ago, Trump proclaimed, "I would like a deal done with Iran on non-nuclear. I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it.”
Then, there is the long, well-documented record of Trump's utter disregard and disrespect for truth or factual accuracy when it is contrary to his objectives. Far too many times for me to care to try to count, Trump proved that he could not be trusted to tell the truth or be accurate as to material facts (except to the extent it might benefit him). Everything for this president is a matter of bluff, bluster and negotiation (often through intimidation).
Long ago, I learned who Trump was from Trump, himself. I read his book, "The Art of the Deal." Trump pretty explicitly boasted that the art of his deal was the manipulation of perception, and sometimes, specifically, the practice of deception. Moreover, what motivates this man is money and the power it can buy. I would not be even slightly surprised to learn that Trump's true objective is getting a piece of Maduro's pie.
When Trump speaks of the corruption of government, we all should listen. Trump knows what he's talking about. Trump knows corruption. No rational person could reasonably defer to any proclamation by any such president.
I think it would be interesting to know how long those World War II appellants were kept in detention. Even if each were subjected to a lot of case by case review, it might have taken a long time and could equally apply here and leave plenty of detainees in custody until after Trump’s presidency.
Please note what the law says about due process of law after the president issues his proclamation, including who has the power to order removal and when and why. See 50 U.S.C. 23:
After any such proclamation [by the president] has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.
"(The government’s appellate brief puts forward the regrettable argument that one acceptable definition of invasion is “the arrival somewhere of people or things who are not wanted there”—a ludicrously low bar)." Hmmm, under this definition are Musk's people an invasion?
Politico: "Federal Judge halts Trump's [ & Pamela Jo Bondi ] deportations invoking the [1798] Alien Enemies Act". The case is an active & successful ACLU lawsuit.
Kudos to Politico's top legal Reporters: MYAH WARD, Kyle Cheney, Ali Bianco & Josh Gerstien all of which are in the Top 10 of our Country's legal reporters.
In regard to the people who were sent to El Salvador yesterday, was there any judicial determination that they were members of TdA? Or did ICE simply declare them TdA and, thus, deportable under the EO. And is there any U.S. judicial recourse for them now that they’re in an El Salvadoran prison?
All of which begs the question to some degree. It looks like the Government (it pains me to type that) 1. made an agreement with El Salvador to imprison these individuals, 2. rounded them up, 3. got them ready to transport, 4. issued Trump's emergency order accompanied by necessary actions by Sec. of State Rubio and El Salvador and then, immediately did "wheels up." By the time the Court acted, even with the ACLU "at the ready" these individuals were in Salvadoran custody )"oopsie...too late"). All niceties aside, when criminals take over the government, the government is a criminal enterprise.
This is a more general question but aren't lawyers obligated to present good faith arguments based on evidence in court? The argument that TdA is the Venezuelan government or a separate foreign nation is absurd on its face and there is no evidence supporting it. I know that courts are loath to sanction lawyers, especially DOJ lawyers, but there are now several examples of Trump's DOJ presenting arguments more akin to throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick than to making substantive legal arguments. Can courts do anything to push back on this abuse and waste of time?
Not directly on point, but I recently posted a query about the meaning of "predatory incursion". It is not "invasion" under Art 4 and the Proclamation relies on terrorist statute. If you aid or abet a cyberattack will you not only be criminally charged, but deported?
Assuming the courts are willing to defer to the executive on the invasion question but still insist on reviewing the membership status of each individual potential deportee, does this EO make it easier for the government to detain people pending removal proceedings?
Good question. But, do not assume all federal courts are willing to defer an EO. Note WELL a federal Judge I have appeared before, Judge William H. Alsup, "Bill" in the Northern District of California. Judge Alsup has Musk-OPM has ... ahh has ... looking for the proper legal phrase ... has Musk-OPM by the balls.
Oh yeah, Judge Alsup ordered OPM Director (NOT) Charles Ezell to testify at Thursday's court Hearing.
Please note, Popcorn 🍿cannot be eaten during Court sessions.
The scan of the statute refers to 'males of the age fourteen years and upwards', but the EO seems to refer to all Venezuelans citizens including females. Had the Alien Enemy Act been rewritten or was there a general acknowledgement that references to only one sex shall include both sexes? Given the current governments obsession with gender, and the clear text of the original act, it seems curious.
I’m unclear what the administration’s position is on the status of the people the order covers.
In a way, they are limiting their application of the law to a narrow subset of the potential set of people it could apply to. But it seems that the ones they’ve selected pose a paradox.
If the particular people are in the act of perpetrating an “invasion or predatory incursion”, then doesn’t that make them not merely “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government” — who normally would be the *other* people from that country who are in the US — but also (in virtue of the fact that the Act is being invoked because *they* are invaders) enemy combatants? Or perhaps there is some other technical term, but what I mean is they are not ordinary civilians but rather duly controller military participants in service to a sovereign?
And if so, then unlike ordinary civilians who may indeed “be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies”, aren’t they subject to the protections afforded military actors by the Third Geneva Convention concerning prisoners of war (as well as any other protections under U.S. law specific to those status)?
Is there some gap between {enemy combatant} and {member of an organization that is regarded as invading the United States and is a state actor unto itself, or is operating as an actor on behalf of the government of Venezuela}?
It would seem, at least to me as a lay person, that you can’t have it both ways. it’s clear from historical context, and even just from reading the statute, that it is meant to cover declared war or a situation in which war has not been declared (probably because Congress is not in session, as was the worry with France in 1798), but in every other respect war or quasi-war activity is taking place.
And so if a situation meets the trigger conditions of the AEA, then the non-participants can be done with as the Act says, whereas the participants (in virtue of the very claim the Act has been triggered), must be treated as invading military.
When AEA was adopted this distinction wasn’t applicable. But hasn’t it been superseded by later law and treaties?
If not, that would require that we split hairs to cleve off this little ontological gap between {a military (act of war) invasion by a foreign nation or government} and {a non-military (so, not act of war) invasion by a foreign nation or government, that nonetheless meets the trigger conditions of the AEA}.
Has the solicitor general or anyone else in the government acknowledged the issue and explained the rationale for the distinction? Because prima facie it would seem that the second set of possible scenarios is null.
To be clear, I think it’s implausible that the trigger conditions have been met. But if the US government is going to take the position that they’ve been met, how are they explaining the theory under which they can do so and yet not regard the participants as military actors?
The concept of a “hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion" is not nearly as far-fetched as some might think. For an interesting illustration of circumstances that Trump might have in mind, check out the Netflix series Narcos: Mexico (e.g., season 2 episodes 7 and 8; season 3, episodes 8 and 9).
History before or closer to the time period of the Alien and Sedition Acts also provides compelling examples. Sir Francis Drake was a famous and profitable privateer for the English crown., "plundering coastal towns and ships" under Spanish protection "for treasure and supplies" for which "Elizabeth I awarded Drake a knighthood." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Drake.
The difference between a pirate and a privateer was to a great extent, that the latter were expressly authorized by one nation to attack targets of another nation. The authorization was written and called a "letter of marque." See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/letter_of_marque
Article I, Section 8 expressly authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
During the Revolutionary War, our Navy even was very hard pressed to recruit sailors because sailors could and commonly did make far more money as privateers. Perhaps the most famous sailor of the Revolutionary War was John Paul Jones. He was often referred to as the "Father of the American Navy." Jones, at times, acted (and allowed his men to act) as privateers and they worked together with privateers.
The French, during the Quasi-War that engendered the Alien and Sedition Acts, used privateers against U.S. shipping.
Civil asset forfeitures seem to be to be highly reminiscent of privateering. Coincidentally, Trump concluded his Proclamation by announcing:
"All property in the possession of, or traceable to, an Alien Enemy, which is used, intended to be used, or is commonly used to perpetrate the hostile activity and irregular warfare of TdA, along with evidence of such hostile activity and irregular warfare, shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture."
Thank you for this impressively prompt and insightful consideration of this vitally important issue. My first thought was that Trump was guilty of a mere veneer of pretending to construe and comply with this law reminiscent of the characterization of Vice President Thomas Jefferson of abuses of the Alien and Sedition Acts in his time ("a reign of witches" that will "pass over" and "their spells dissolve" when "the people recovering their true sight, restore their government to it’s true principles"). https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-3002-0280.
My second thought was that Trump might be right, and I look forward to seeing the proof that the government of a foreign nation is doing what Trump proclaimed. Maybe this is today's equivalent of Bush's WMD's in Iraq. Maybe not. These might turn out to be fascinating proceedings.
More importantly, Mr. Vladeck reveals a broader criminal offense: Pam Bondi, Tom Holman, orange psycho, orange psycho's lawyers are all LIARS....they are manipulating the Citizens of the United States of America (that is, We The People are being LIED to by MAGA freaks).
Some of the most important limiting language is in a later section of the very law with which Trump is pretending to comply (while he is blatantly violating it). Please note what the law says about due process of law after the president issues his proclamation, including who has the power to order removal and when and why. See 50 U.S.C. 23:
After any such proclamation [by the president] has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.
Thanks for this impressive and, under the time constraints, very comprehensive overview of the issues raised by Trump's Executive Order. I would expect DOJ to press very hard on the President's foreign relations powers and national security discretion, in order to invoke some creditable doctrine of judicial deference and non-review. The Administration certainly has some chance at getting the Court of Appeals it wants, and already has three or four votes at the Supreme Court for a hands-off deference to a unitary and near-plenary presidency. Thinking ahead -- because ahead we are going -- where might a SCOTUS majority stand on these issues??
Whatever deference might have been due any proclamation by any prior president, it definitely is not due this president.
Trump is profoundly different from any president before him in ways that reflect on his credibility and whether he's acting in good faith. He cannot be voted out of office (or re-elected). He almost certainly will not be impeached again by the House, much less convicted and removed by the Senate. He apparently could not care less about the Republican party or conservatives, generally. And, most compelling, six SCOTUS justices--for the first time in our nation's history--proclaimed that Trump (and everybody he grants pardons to) cannot be prosecuted for any of the federal crimes they commit in their wild and egregious abuses and usurpations of power.
After SCOTUS usurped the power to pretend that we delegated to SCOTUS the power to make presidents "immune" from prosecution for criminal abuses and usurpations of power, Trump campaigned for control of America's nuclear arsenal by proclaiming “If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country — in this case, Iran — that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens. We are going to blow it to smithereens.”
Trump (even as president) has a long and well-known history of tossing about wildly excessive proclamations, implications and threats as a negotiating tactic. He did it on and before January 6. In another example a mere month ago, Trump proclaimed, "I would like a deal done with Iran on non-nuclear. I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it.”
Then, there is the long, well-documented record of Trump's utter disregard and disrespect for truth or factual accuracy when it is contrary to his objectives. Far too many times for me to care to try to count, Trump proved that he could not be trusted to tell the truth or be accurate as to material facts (except to the extent it might benefit him). Everything for this president is a matter of bluff, bluster and negotiation (often through intimidation).
Long ago, I learned who Trump was from Trump, himself. I read his book, "The Art of the Deal." Trump pretty explicitly boasted that the art of his deal was the manipulation of perception, and sometimes, specifically, the practice of deception. Moreover, what motivates this man is money and the power it can buy. I would not be even slightly surprised to learn that Trump's true objective is getting a piece of Maduro's pie.
When Trump speaks of the corruption of government, we all should listen. Trump knows what he's talking about. Trump knows corruption. No rational person could reasonably defer to any proclamation by any such president.
I think it would be interesting to know how long those World War II appellants were kept in detention. Even if each were subjected to a lot of case by case review, it might have taken a long time and could equally apply here and leave plenty of detainees in custody until after Trump’s presidency.
Yes!!
Please note what the law says about due process of law after the president issues his proclamation, including who has the power to order removal and when and why. See 50 U.S.C. 23:
After any such proclamation [by the president] has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.
"(The government’s appellate brief puts forward the regrettable argument that one acceptable definition of invasion is “the arrival somewhere of people or things who are not wanted there”—a ludicrously low bar)." Hmmm, under this definition are Musk's people an invasion?
Politico: "Federal Judge halts Trump's [ & Pamela Jo Bondi ] deportations invoking the [1798] Alien Enemies Act". The case is an active & successful ACLU lawsuit.
Kudos to Politico's top legal Reporters: MYAH WARD, Kyle Cheney, Ali Bianco & Josh Gerstien all of which are in the Top 10 of our Country's legal reporters.
Good one lead Author, Myah!
In regard to the people who were sent to El Salvador yesterday, was there any judicial determination that they were members of TdA? Or did ICE simply declare them TdA and, thus, deportable under the EO. And is there any U.S. judicial recourse for them now that they’re in an El Salvadoran prison?
All of which begs the question to some degree. It looks like the Government (it pains me to type that) 1. made an agreement with El Salvador to imprison these individuals, 2. rounded them up, 3. got them ready to transport, 4. issued Trump's emergency order accompanied by necessary actions by Sec. of State Rubio and El Salvador and then, immediately did "wheels up." By the time the Court acted, even with the ACLU "at the ready" these individuals were in Salvadoran custody )"oopsie...too late"). All niceties aside, when criminals take over the government, the government is a criminal enterprise.
This is a more general question but aren't lawyers obligated to present good faith arguments based on evidence in court? The argument that TdA is the Venezuelan government or a separate foreign nation is absurd on its face and there is no evidence supporting it. I know that courts are loath to sanction lawyers, especially DOJ lawyers, but there are now several examples of Trump's DOJ presenting arguments more akin to throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick than to making substantive legal arguments. Can courts do anything to push back on this abuse and waste of time?
Not directly on point, but I recently posted a query about the meaning of "predatory incursion". It is not "invasion" under Art 4 and the Proclamation relies on terrorist statute. If you aid or abet a cyberattack will you not only be criminally charged, but deported?
Good point Brooks White.
Assuming the courts are willing to defer to the executive on the invasion question but still insist on reviewing the membership status of each individual potential deportee, does this EO make it easier for the government to detain people pending removal proceedings?
Good question. But, do not assume all federal courts are willing to defer an EO. Note WELL a federal Judge I have appeared before, Judge William H. Alsup, "Bill" in the Northern District of California. Judge Alsup has Musk-OPM has ... ahh has ... looking for the proper legal phrase ... has Musk-OPM by the balls.
Oh yeah, Judge Alsup ordered OPM Director (NOT) Charles Ezell to testify at Thursday's court Hearing.
Please note, Popcorn 🍿cannot be eaten during Court sessions.
😂😂😂 on the popcorn!!!
The scan of the statute refers to 'males of the age fourteen years and upwards', but the EO seems to refer to all Venezuelans citizens including females. Had the Alien Enemy Act been rewritten or was there a general acknowledgement that references to only one sex shall include both sexes? Given the current governments obsession with gender, and the clear text of the original act, it seems curious.
The current version isn’t gender-specific:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21
When did that change?
April 16, 1918 (look at the bottom of the statute in the link SV provided. You will find a date and also a link to Stat (with the text as amended).
I’m unclear what the administration’s position is on the status of the people the order covers.
In a way, they are limiting their application of the law to a narrow subset of the potential set of people it could apply to. But it seems that the ones they’ve selected pose a paradox.
If the particular people are in the act of perpetrating an “invasion or predatory incursion”, then doesn’t that make them not merely “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government” — who normally would be the *other* people from that country who are in the US — but also (in virtue of the fact that the Act is being invoked because *they* are invaders) enemy combatants? Or perhaps there is some other technical term, but what I mean is they are not ordinary civilians but rather duly controller military participants in service to a sovereign?
And if so, then unlike ordinary civilians who may indeed “be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies”, aren’t they subject to the protections afforded military actors by the Third Geneva Convention concerning prisoners of war (as well as any other protections under U.S. law specific to those status)?
Is there some gap between {enemy combatant} and {member of an organization that is regarded as invading the United States and is a state actor unto itself, or is operating as an actor on behalf of the government of Venezuela}?
It would seem, at least to me as a lay person, that you can’t have it both ways. it’s clear from historical context, and even just from reading the statute, that it is meant to cover declared war or a situation in which war has not been declared (probably because Congress is not in session, as was the worry with France in 1798), but in every other respect war or quasi-war activity is taking place.
And so if a situation meets the trigger conditions of the AEA, then the non-participants can be done with as the Act says, whereas the participants (in virtue of the very claim the Act has been triggered), must be treated as invading military.
When AEA was adopted this distinction wasn’t applicable. But hasn’t it been superseded by later law and treaties?
If not, that would require that we split hairs to cleve off this little ontological gap between {a military (act of war) invasion by a foreign nation or government} and {a non-military (so, not act of war) invasion by a foreign nation or government, that nonetheless meets the trigger conditions of the AEA}.
Has the solicitor general or anyone else in the government acknowledged the issue and explained the rationale for the distinction? Because prima facie it would seem that the second set of possible scenarios is null.
To be clear, I think it’s implausible that the trigger conditions have been met. But if the US government is going to take the position that they’ve been met, how are they explaining the theory under which they can do so and yet not regard the participants as military actors?
The concept of a “hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion" is not nearly as far-fetched as some might think. For an interesting illustration of circumstances that Trump might have in mind, check out the Netflix series Narcos: Mexico (e.g., season 2 episodes 7 and 8; season 3, episodes 8 and 9).
History before or closer to the time period of the Alien and Sedition Acts also provides compelling examples. Sir Francis Drake was a famous and profitable privateer for the English crown., "plundering coastal towns and ships" under Spanish protection "for treasure and supplies" for which "Elizabeth I awarded Drake a knighthood." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Drake.
The difference between a pirate and a privateer was to a great extent, that the latter were expressly authorized by one nation to attack targets of another nation. The authorization was written and called a "letter of marque." See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/letter_of_marque
Article I, Section 8 expressly authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
During the Revolutionary War, our Navy even was very hard pressed to recruit sailors because sailors could and commonly did make far more money as privateers. Perhaps the most famous sailor of the Revolutionary War was John Paul Jones. He was often referred to as the "Father of the American Navy." Jones, at times, acted (and allowed his men to act) as privateers and they worked together with privateers.
The French, during the Quasi-War that engendered the Alien and Sedition Acts, used privateers against U.S. shipping.
Civil asset forfeitures seem to be to be highly reminiscent of privateering. Coincidentally, Trump concluded his Proclamation by announcing:
"All property in the possession of, or traceable to, an Alien Enemy, which is used, intended to be used, or is commonly used to perpetrate the hostile activity and irregular warfare of TdA, along with evidence of such hostile activity and irregular warfare, shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture."
This was actually worse than I thought:
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judge-deport-venezuelans?stream=top&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts_all
So much for Judicial Review of actions by the Executive!
Yep.
Thank you for this impressively prompt and insightful consideration of this vitally important issue. My first thought was that Trump was guilty of a mere veneer of pretending to construe and comply with this law reminiscent of the characterization of Vice President Thomas Jefferson of abuses of the Alien and Sedition Acts in his time ("a reign of witches" that will "pass over" and "their spells dissolve" when "the people recovering their true sight, restore their government to it’s true principles"). https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-3002-0280.
My second thought was that Trump might be right, and I look forward to seeing the proof that the government of a foreign nation is doing what Trump proclaimed. Maybe this is today's equivalent of Bush's WMD's in Iraq. Maybe not. These might turn out to be fascinating proceedings.
Note: EO does not say "is" TDA, or even "accused" of being TDA... It says "deemed" TDA, which the Orange Stained Hitler can choose to do for *anyone*
More importantly, Mr. Vladeck reveals a broader criminal offense: Pam Bondi, Tom Holman, orange psycho, orange psycho's lawyers are all LIARS....they are manipulating the Citizens of the United States of America (that is, We The People are being LIED to by MAGA freaks).
Some of the most important limiting language is in a later section of the very law with which Trump is pretending to comply (while he is blatantly violating it). Please note what the law says about due process of law after the president issues his proclamation, including who has the power to order removal and when and why. See 50 U.S.C. 23:
After any such proclamation [by the president] has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and sufficient cause appearing, to order such alien to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties for his good behavior, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established as aforesaid, and to imprison, or otherwise secure such alien, until the order which may be so made shall be performed.