Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump Administration Defies Judge’s Order to Halt Deportations

News

Donald Trump
President Donald Trump.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The Trump administration announced on Sunday that hundreds of individuals were deported after President Donald Trump invoked a significant wartime authority to expedite the deportation of migrants believed to be connected to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

This announcement follows a federal judge's temporary blocking of the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, issued on Saturday evening. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg verbally ordered that any planes currently in the air carrying these migrants be redirected back to the United States.


Judge Boasberg stated that the temporary restraining order would be in effect for 14 days or until further court instruction. During the hearing, he noted, “Given the plaintiffs’ information, which the government did not contest, regarding active flights, I do not believe that I can wait any longer. Any plane containing these individuals that is set to take off or is already in the air needs to be returned to the United States.”

What is the Alien Enemies Act?

In 1798, as the United States braced for a potential conflict with France, Congress enacted a series of laws that expanded the federal government's authority. Concerned that immigrants might align with French interests, the Alien Enemies Act was established to grant the president extensive powers to imprison and deport non-citizens during wartime.

Since its inception, the act has been invoked only three times: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. During World War II, amid widespread anti-foreigner sentiment, the act contributed to the legal justification for the mass internment of individuals of German, Italian, and particularly Japanese descent.

Approximately 120,000 individuals of Japanese heritage, including U.S. citizens, were interned throughout the conflict.

" This Act returns our country to a shameful chapter of our history."

The Secure Families Initiative has expressed concern over using the Alien Enemies Act, stating, “We are not at war. This is not an invasion by a foreign state.”

They argue that invoking such a wartime authority is inappropriate given the current circumstances, and it raises risks for military families and civilians. "First, it is exclusively a wartime authority, which the moment we are in clearly is not. This move radically escalated an already volatile situation, and it puts the 50-70,000 U.S. service families and civilians living along the U.S.-Mexico border at risk of severe retaliation from foreign actors. Second, this Act removes crucial guardrails that ensure our service members are only ordered into missions that fall within proper legal boundaries and align with their training."

To read the full statement, click HERE.

In response, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated that the Trump administration believed it did not violate the judge’s order, as it was issued after the migrants had already departed the U.S.

Following this development, the administration is seeking a stay of the D.C. District Court judge’s ruling, and the court has requested a response from the plaintiffs' attorneys by Tuesday at 5 p.m.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network.


Read More

The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections
Rawpixel/Getty

The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections

The Trump administration has expended significant resources trying to meddle in elections ahead of the midterms. This coordinated campaign includes attempts to limit who can vote, wrestle away states’ authority over elections, and undermine public confidence in election outcomes. So far, virtually everything the administration has tried has been blocked by courts, failed in Congress, or simply fizzled out.

Currently, the administration is 0–21 in its court cases seeking to amass state voter data. In dozens of states, election officials from both parties have refused to turn over their complete voter rolls, which contain confidential personal information, to the Justice Department. Federal courts from Arizona to Maine have thrown out the department’s lawsuits, ruling that the federal government lacks the power to force states to hand over this data on a mass scale.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Erosion of Judicial Integrity
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

The Erosion of Judicial Integrity

The partisanship of the Roberts Supreme Court Republicans violates the neutrality central to the rule of law's legitimacy. Moreover, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, viewed avaricious oligarchs and seditious demagogues as the two gravest threats to democracy. They would doubtlessly view the Roberts Republicans – with rulings institutionalizing oligarchic pay-to-play while embracing Trump’s authoritarianism - as another grave threat.

The Rule of Law Survived One Judicial Coup

Keep ReadingShow less
How Lawyers Protect America’s Democracy and Rule of Law
person in orange long sleeve shirt writing on white paper
Photo by Romain Dancre on Unsplash

How Lawyers Protect America’s Democracy and Rule of Law

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Lady Justice

Photo provided

Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Impunity is not only the failure to punish. It is a public answer to the question of whether harm matters.

Every democracy must repeatedly answer the question of impunity. When public trust is violated, or when law itself is manipulated or attacked, penalties matter. But the deeper question is whether a society can recognize injury and prevent further harm when it has lost the ability to clearly name wrongdoing.

Keep ReadingShow less