Judges consider whether Trump can use wartime act against Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua
The attorneys sparred before a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, the latest step in a tangled legal battle over Trump's March invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the Tren de Aragua gang.
The law has only previously been used during World Wars I and II and the War of 1812. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt told the three-judge panel that Trump's use of it is inappropriate. 'This has only been invoked three times in major, major wars, and now it's being invoked in connection with a gang,' Gelernt said.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign, arguing for the administration, said that courts cannot second-guess a president's determination that the U.S. faces a threat from abroad and requires extraordinary measures to protect itself. He noted that the only time the high court weighed in on the act was in a case that dates from after fighting in Europe ended in World War II, when the court said it could not second-guess then-President Harry Truman's assertion that suspected Nazis should still be held under the act because the war was still continuing.
'The president is due the utmost deference' in matters of foreign affairs and security, Ensign said.
Trump's invocation has already been twice before the nation's highest court on more technical issues. First, the court found that those accused of being TdA members deserved a 'reasonable' amount of time to challenge that designation in court, but that their deportations could only be challenged in the locations they were held. That eliminated a national bar against deportations under the act issued by a federal judge in Washington, who later found the administration possibly committed contempt when it disregarded his orders and continued to fly some held under the AEA to a prison in El Salvador.
Then, after the ACLU and its allies began filing suits all around the country and winning rulings barring deportations under the measure, the high court stepped in a second time. In April it issued an unusual post-midnight ruling stopping the administration from deporting people from a slice of north Texas where there was yet no active ruling against removal.
As multiple lower court judges found the AEA couldn't be used against a gang, the high court directed the 5th Circuit to consider the issue and how much time those held should have to challenge their designation.
The government, which initially provided minimal notice, now says the standard should be seven days to file an appeal. The ACLU argued for 30 days, the amount of time given to suspected Nazis held during World War II.
The panel that heard Monday's arguments was comprised of one judge appointed by Trump, one by former President George W. Bush and one by Biden. Whatever it rules can be appealed to either the entire 5th circuit — one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country — or directly to the high court.
Trump has argued that TdA is acting at the behest of Venezuela's government. The Act allows its use to combat either an 'invasion' or a 'predatory incursion.'
But the ACLU argues that the connection between the gang and the Venezuelan government is tangential at best, and that an assessment by 17 different intelligence agencies found little coordination between TdA and the government in Caracas. Gelernt contended that, by the standards laid out by the administration, the AEA could have been used against the mafia or any other criminal organization with tangential ties to other countries that has operated in the United States over the past 200 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
5 hours ago
- New York Times
Convicted Murderer Released by Trump From Venezuelan Prison Is Free in U.S.
He killed three people in Spain and fled to Venezuela, where he was sentenced to 30 years in prison, court documents show. Then last week, the Trump administration negotiated his release as part of a large prisoner swap, and he arrived on American soil. Now, the convict, Dahud Hanid Ortiz, 54, a U.S. Army veteran, is free in the United States, according to two people with knowledge of the case. One said he was in Orlando, Fla. When the Americans put Mr. Hanid Ortiz on a plane on Friday back to the United States, at least some people in the Trump administration knew of his criminal past, according to third person. Mr. Hanid Ortiz was among 10 Americans and U.S. legal permanent residents extracted by the United States from detention in Venezuela on Friday. In exchange, the United States agreed to allow the release of 252 Venezuelan men it had sent to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration claimed all the men were members of the Tren de Aragua gang and had to be removed to protect the security of Americans. President Trump had used a wartime power, the Alien Enemies Act, to expel them. His administration provided little evidence to back its claim that they were all criminals. Mr. Hanid Ortiz's crimes and conviction had been documented in the news media and in public court records for years before his release. In 2023, officials in the Biden administration who had learned of his detention in Venezuela decided not to take him as part of a different prisoner swap, according to a former U.S. official. The official said that the Spanish authorities had asked the United States to send him to Spain, but that Spanish officials ultimately decided against this — and the Department of Justice decided it didn't want him in the United States. The decision by the Trump administration to facilitate Mr. Hanid Ortiz's release from the Venezuelan prison has elicited anger and fear among relatives of his victims — and a man court records say he had intended to kill but who, ultimately, survived. Mr. Hanid Ortiz's crimes took place in 2016 in Madrid, according to Venezuelan court documents, when he visited the office of a lawyer, Victor Salas, who he believed was having a relationship with his wife. He killed two women there, as well as a man he mistook for Mr. Salas. He fled to Germany and then to Venezuela. Spain sought the extradition of Mr. Salas, but the Venezuelan Constitution does not allow the extradition of its citizens, and he was tried instead in Venezuela. It is unclear if Mr. Hanid Ortiz can now be extradited to Spain, since he has already been tried and convicted in Venezuela and served some prison time. The Spanish prosecutor's office has confirmed Mr. Hanid Ortiz's conviction and release by the Venezuelan authorities, but declined on Thursday to comment further. Mr. Hanid Ortiz, a dual Venezuelan American citizen, served 19 years in the Army and was awarded a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq. He suffered multiple physical and mental injuries as a result of his military service, according to an Army court document, and then was forced out of the military after pleading guilty to fraud and larceny. This week, Mr. Salas said in an interview that when he heard Mr. Hanid Ortiz had been released, he immediately feared for his life. 'If this was an omission, please make amends,' he said, directing his message to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 'Because it not only endangers me, but all Americans, because they are faced with a murderer who killed three innocent people without any qualms.' José Bautista contributed reporting from Madrid, and Michael Crowley from Washington.
Time Magazine
6 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Is Donald Trump Named in the Epstein Files?
The Trump Administration has tried—and failed—to put tensions over its handling of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's case to bed for weeks. But they've only continued to escalate as news outlets have reported new information related to President Donald Trump's years-long relationship with Epstein and potential inclusion in files related to the case. The recent controversy ignited after the Department of Justice and FBI issued a memo earlier this month declaring Epstein's death a suicide and denying the existence of a 'client list' of people involved in his alleged sex trafficking activities. The memo contradicted a slew of conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein that have been particularly prominent on the right and had previously been fueled by top Trump Administration officials including FBI Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who in February stated that the rumored 'client list' was 'sitting on my desk right now.' (Following the memo's release, both have walked back their previous comments: Patel stated that 'the conspiracy theories just aren't true, never have been,' and Bondi said that she was referring to the case file on Epstein in the February interview.) Trump himself brought the issue up more rarely than his allies, though he promised on the campaign trail to release more information related to the case. The Administration's reversal on the matter has drawn outcry from the President's MAGA base and divided the Republican Party, as constituent concerns and calls for transparency have clashed with Trump's repeated attempts to downplay the scandal. House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier this week prevented a vote on a bipartisan bill that would mandate the full release of the Epstein files—cosponsored by fellow Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna—by sending lawmakers home early for their five-week recess. A day later, the House Oversight Committee voted late Wednesday to subpoena the Department of Justice for its files related to Epstein's case. 'The American people deserve transparency and accountability and his victims deserve justice,' Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, the top-ranking Democrat on the panel, wrote on X Wednesday. 'The wealthy and powerful are not above the law.' Three Republicans on the committee broke with their party to vote with Democrats on the matter. The committee also issued a subpoena for a deposition from Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's long-time associate who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking and other crimes. Here's what to know about the controversy and how the Administration is responding. White House hits back at reports that Trump is named in the files Questions about the Administration's handling of documents related to Epstein further mounted after the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets reported on Wednesday that Justice Department officials informed the President in May that his name is in the Epstein files. His inclusion in the records, which also include the names of other influential figures, isn't evidence of wrongdoing, according to the Journal's report. Trump's name has previously appeared in unsealed documents in the case, along with those of a number of other Epstein acquaintances and associates. Justice Department officials also reportedly informed Trump in the May briefing that they did not plan on releasing additional files related to Epstein because the material included child pornography and the personal information of victims. The Administration is pushing back on the reporting. White House communications director Steven Cheung referred to it as 'fake news' in a statement to TIME. 'The fact is that the President kicked him out of his club for being a creep,' Cheung said. However, a Trump official told Reuters that the Administration is not denying that Trump's name was mentioned in the files. The Journal's most recent report comes as its parent companies, owner, two reporters, and one of the parent company's CEOs face a libel lawsuit filed by the President in response to an earlier story alleging that Trump was one of dozens of individuals who wrote letters to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,' the letter concluded, according to the media outlet. TIME has not independently verified the reporting. On Wednesday, Rep. Khanna told MSNBC's 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' that he planned on issuing a subpoena for the birthday album, which is in the possession of the Epstein estate. In the face of the escalating scandal, the Trump Administration has made some effort to release more files related to Epstein. On July 18, the Justice Department filed a motion asking for grand jury transcripts in the case to be released. A Florida federal judge this Wednesday blocked one of the Administration's requests to unseal grand jury testimony, citing regulations barring courts from unsealing such transcripts except in narrow circumstances. Two other requests for information filed by the Department in the state of New York are still being considered. What has Trump said about Epstein? Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from Epstein since the disgraced financier's first conviction in 2008, the two were previously pictured together on numerous occasions—including at Trump's 1993 wedding to Marla Maples and at his Mar-a-Lago estate. In a 2002 interview with New York Magazine, Trump stated that he had known Epstein for around 15 years and referred to him as a 'terrific guy' and 'a lot of fun.' 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life,' the magazine quoted the President as saying. In 2017, however, the Trump Organization denied that the President had a relationship with Epstein or was aware of his conduct. 'This has all been reported countless times in the press,' Trump Organization attorney Alan Garten told POLITICO. The President has expressed ire at the media's focus on Epstein in recent weeks. 'I had the Greatest Six Months of any President in the History of our Country, and all the Fake News wants to talk about is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax!' Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. What files have already been released on Epstein and is there a client list? Public pressure for the unsealing of files regarding the notorious sex offender is in part due to Trump's 2024 presidential campaign promise to release more information regarding the matter. Some previously sealed documents related to the Epstein and Maxwell cases have already been made public. In January 2024, more than 1,400 pages of records were unsealed under the Biden Administration, though they included little new information. This February, the Trump Justice Department released what it referred to as the 'first phase of the declassified Epstein files,' first to a group of right-wing influencers and later publicly. The information, however, was mostly already public, including flight logs and a redacted copy of Epstein's contact book. Trump is among other prominent figures named in the previously unsealed documents. He was mentioned in a 2016 deposition from Johanna Sjoberg, one of Epstein's victims, who said the disgraced financier's plane made an impromptu stop in Atlantic City in the 2000s. Sjoberg said 'no' when asked if she'd given Trump a massage. The FBI and DOJ have denied the existence of a 'client list' of people Epstein allegedly trafficked young girls to. They also said there is no credible evidence that Epstein blackmailed associates to keep them quiet. Why is the government meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell now? Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Tuesday that he intended to meet with Maxwell to discuss Epstein and what she knows about his actions. Blanche said he reached out at Bondi's request. 'President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence,' he said. 'If Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say.' Maxwell's lawyer confirmed in a post on X that they were in contact with the government. The decision to speak with Maxwell, as well as the Department of Justice's request for grand jury testimony related to the Epstein to be unsealed on Friday, mark a shift in Bondi's approach to the issue as the Administration continues to take fire from its base and some Republican lawmakers and media figures.
Indianapolis Star
7 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
ACLU lawsuit over Indiana's college intellectual diversity law is dismissed
A legal challenge to Indiana's law mandating "intellectual diversity" in college classrooms has been dismissed after a judge ruled the fear behind the law's subsequent chilling effect on free expression was unproven. In his July 23 order, Judge Richard L. Young wrote that the legal complaint was premature. The case also lacks standing, he said, because universities have not taken or threatened enforcement actions against faculty members. "The court finds Plaintiffs have adequately shown they have an actual fear of enforcement that has chilled their protected speech," wrote Young, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton. "The issue is whether that fear is well-founded." Last September, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Hoosier professors who claim the state law infringes on academic freedom and their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In a statement to IndyStar, ACLU of Indiana spokesperson Laura Forbes said the organization is disappointed in the decision and is considering its options. When Senate Bill 202 progressed through the Indiana Statehouse in 2024, professors decried the legislation, claiming the bill would stifle academic freedom and damage higher education outcomes, recruitment and prowess. Academic freedom is defined as the ability for an institution's faculty and staff members to build curriculum, research and pursue knowledge without interference from government officials and administrators, according to several First Amendment organizations. Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have labeled academic freedom as protected under the First Amendment. SB 202 requires the state's public universities, when evaluating a faculty member's tenure, to consider whether they have embraced free expression and "intellectual diversity" in the classroom and if they have expressed political views unrelated to their discipline while teaching. It also directed universities to stand up a process for students to report professors on those grounds. If a university finds that a professor is teaching contrary to the law, the professor may not be granted tenure or be denied a promotion. The bill, introduced by Sen. Spencer Deery, R-Lafayette, was enacted in July 2024. A year in, a total of 14 complaints have been filed at Indiana University, Ball State University, Indiana State University and Ivy Tech University. It's unclear whether any disciplinary action has been taken on them yet. The ACLU's complaint argues that the law was not adequately defined, and the professors have changed the content and pedagogy of their courses in fear of disciplinary action. An ACLU news release said the law could chill course debate over concerns that unfounded theories must be given the same credence as "rigorously studied academic analysis." The lawsuit was the ACLU's second attempt to challenge the law. It first challenged SB 202 in May 2024, but that effort was dismissed after the judge said the plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction to sue. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
