Portrayed by some as a “win” for President Trump, the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of a key Alien Enemies Act appeal drives home how much the government has lost.
"There is also, of course, the ongoing litigation in the D.C. district court over the government’s defiance of Chief Judge Boasberg’s TROs in the J.G.G. case. But on the merits, that case, too, has long-since been mooted."
Yes. Actually punishing these people is the sort of thing that leads people to dream of an afterlife.
Thanks Professor Steve! We hope you enjoyed your short vacation! On this post, did you consider the possibility that the Solicitor General (much as I hate to admit it) may actually have a bit of wisdom in his cunning? Historically, Presidents have left questions of some (sometimes many) powers unanswered for many reasons including fear that wrong answers could box in future Presidents. We know Trump has no concern for the future of the Presidency but his SG may take opportunities that serve the boss and history and the future as well. On the other hand, it could be “alien enemies” are no longer as interesting to this administration as “domestic enemies.” Call me cynical, but I am being beckoned to the latter view. Thoughts? Thanks again!
So, the Fifth Circuit left the door open for a President AOC can declare that Russia, in the form of propaganda and sanctions-evading money, are "invading" the US and therefore any Russian sympathizers or recipients of the illegal largesse can be removed from the US and sent wherever the US can find a country that says it won't torture or murder (just "says", nothing beyond "says")?
Judges Ho and Oldham seem very certain that "I'm far too Important a person to ever be subjected to the law."
Thirty-six emergencies! This ultra conservative majority “humors” - indeed gives near total immunity to - a cranky manchild whose behavior is ignored but whose loud, whiny demands are immediate.
I love how these issues require careful attention to details, even side paths, while being even more careful to follow the correct path that takes us to the actual conclusion. Mind exercise!
I wonder if we should pay attention to the persepctive of individuals who find themselves being deported brutally and cruelly, with no opportunity for a hearing of any kind, to delightful vacation destinations and places of economic opportunity – including some where they may have no cultural or other connections. Will they say, “Oh great, at least I am not being deported under the Alien Enemies Act” ?
With acknowledgement and apologies to Aretha Franklin:
This whole thing is a little reminiscent of the domestic “enemy combatant” detention case —remember Jose Padilla?—detained under a law-of-war theory until the case was ready to return to SCOTUS. The government decided to moot the case by indicting the detainee as it became clear it was going to lose. After which Congress passed legislation on law-of-war detention pretending to protect US citizens but essentially saying it was not changing the law in that regard (whatever the law was). Whether the President has authority remains unknown, as it will remain with the AEA and “predatory incursions” (or “invasions” for that matter). But I think it matters that the government backed down for future such endeavors.
The Fifth Circuit’s en‑banc decision in A.A.R.P. v. Trump—now W.M.M. v. Trump—finally clarifies whether the President can invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to curtail civil liberties when the relevant parties are no longer in custody. This outcome dovetails with broader efforts to streamline access to justice, a mission echoed in the publicly available at https://wv-arrests.org/jefferson-county/ which offer transparent data on recent detentions. Such clarity reinforces the judiciary’s role as a bulwark against executive overreach, ensuring constitutional safeguards remain intact.
This is an interesting discussion about how the Alien Enemies Act has been used and why its future deserves careful consideration. I also think access to reliable public records can help people better understand how legal decisions affect communities. Resources covering https://countyjail.org can provide useful context when researching publicly available custody information. Clear, factual sources are especially valuable when discussing complex legal and policy issues.
This is an interesting discussion, especially given the broader questions about executive authority and judicial review. Following court developments closely is important when legal decisions may affect individual rights and government powers. Resources like https://hawaiicourtrecords.org can be useful when looking for case-related information. It will be interesting to see how courts continue to address these issues.
I wonder whether the administration's view that enemy aliens may be deported without recourse to the courts conflicts with the obligations of the United States under international law. Even when a country is actually at war with the United States, some of its nationals resident in the United States may be opponents of the government of the enemy country and have valid claims to asylum. For instance, many Iranians in the United States oppose the regime and would be at risk of imprisonment, torture, or death if they were returned to Iran. Equity, and as I understand it, international humanitarian law, and indeed the law of the United States insofar as the right to asylum and the ban on refoulement are enshrined in US law by treaty, would seem to require individualized consideration of such cases.
"There is also, of course, the ongoing litigation in the D.C. district court over the government’s defiance of Chief Judge Boasberg’s TROs in the J.G.G. case. But on the merits, that case, too, has long-since been mooted."
Yes. Actually punishing these people is the sort of thing that leads people to dream of an afterlife.
This was super helpful, thank you! There was definitely a "gap" with all this that I couldn't resolve in my head. You have now filled that!
Thanks Professor Steve! We hope you enjoyed your short vacation! On this post, did you consider the possibility that the Solicitor General (much as I hate to admit it) may actually have a bit of wisdom in his cunning? Historically, Presidents have left questions of some (sometimes many) powers unanswered for many reasons including fear that wrong answers could box in future Presidents. We know Trump has no concern for the future of the Presidency but his SG may take opportunities that serve the boss and history and the future as well. On the other hand, it could be “alien enemies” are no longer as interesting to this administration as “domestic enemies.” Call me cynical, but I am being beckoned to the latter view. Thoughts? Thanks again!
So, the Fifth Circuit left the door open for a President AOC can declare that Russia, in the form of propaganda and sanctions-evading money, are "invading" the US and therefore any Russian sympathizers or recipients of the illegal largesse can be removed from the US and sent wherever the US can find a country that says it won't torture or murder (just "says", nothing beyond "says")?
Judges Ho and Oldham seem very certain that "I'm far too Important a person to ever be subjected to the law."
Thirty-six emergencies! This ultra conservative majority “humors” - indeed gives near total immunity to - a cranky manchild whose behavior is ignored but whose loud, whiny demands are immediate.
Trump’s (and Miller’s) “innovative” reading of the AEA … proof again that he neither does not read or doesn’t understand what’s read to him.
I love how these issues require careful attention to details, even side paths, while being even more careful to follow the correct path that takes us to the actual conclusion. Mind exercise!
I wonder if we should pay attention to the persepctive of individuals who find themselves being deported brutally and cruelly, with no opportunity for a hearing of any kind, to delightful vacation destinations and places of economic opportunity – including some where they may have no cultural or other connections. Will they say, “Oh great, at least I am not being deported under the Alien Enemies Act” ?
With acknowledgement and apologies to Aretha Franklin:
Shame, shame, shame
(Shame, shame, shame)
Shame, shame, shame
(Shame, shame, shame)
Shame, shame, shame
(Shame, shame, shame)
Shame you fools
For many years
I thought this was my land
But I found out
You enjoy imposing pain
Oh, you got me where you want me
I'm your political tool
You treated me mean
Oh, you treated me cruel
This whole thing is a little reminiscent of the domestic “enemy combatant” detention case —remember Jose Padilla?—detained under a law-of-war theory until the case was ready to return to SCOTUS. The government decided to moot the case by indicting the detainee as it became clear it was going to lose. After which Congress passed legislation on law-of-war detention pretending to protect US citizens but essentially saying it was not changing the law in that regard (whatever the law was). Whether the President has authority remains unknown, as it will remain with the AEA and “predatory incursions” (or “invasions” for that matter). But I think it matters that the government backed down for future such endeavors.
I don’t think Boasberg’s inquiry is moot. It is a (potential) criminal case and as such should survive the vanishing of the underlying order.
The Fifth Circuit’s en‑banc decision in A.A.R.P. v. Trump—now W.M.M. v. Trump—finally clarifies whether the President can invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to curtail civil liberties when the relevant parties are no longer in custody. This outcome dovetails with broader efforts to streamline access to justice, a mission echoed in the publicly available at https://wv-arrests.org/jefferson-county/ which offer transparent data on recent detentions. Such clarity reinforces the judiciary’s role as a bulwark against executive overreach, ensuring constitutional safeguards remain intact.
This is an interesting discussion about how the Alien Enemies Act has been used and why its future deserves careful consideration. I also think access to reliable public records can help people better understand how legal decisions affect communities. Resources covering https://countyjail.org can provide useful context when researching publicly available custody information. Clear, factual sources are especially valuable when discussing complex legal and policy issues.
This is an interesting discussion, especially given the broader questions about executive authority and judicial review. Following court developments closely is important when legal decisions may affect individual rights and government powers. Resources like https://hawaiicourtrecords.org can be useful when looking for case-related information. It will be interesting to see how courts continue to address these issues.
I wonder whether the administration's view that enemy aliens may be deported without recourse to the courts conflicts with the obligations of the United States under international law. Even when a country is actually at war with the United States, some of its nationals resident in the United States may be opponents of the government of the enemy country and have valid claims to asylum. For instance, many Iranians in the United States oppose the regime and would be at risk of imprisonment, torture, or death if they were returned to Iran. Equity, and as I understand it, international humanitarian law, and indeed the law of the United States insofar as the right to asylum and the ban on refoulement are enshrined in US law by treaty, would seem to require individualized consideration of such cases.
I think it’s only a potential end if you think Trump wont creatively expand his use of the statute in strange and unconventional ways.