Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Inside Courthouse Immigration Arrests: Controversy, Legal History, and Implications

People protest in Chicago as part of the No Kings Rallies at Daley Plaza on June 14, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois.

Photo by Kamil Krzaczynski/Getty Images for No Kings

Inside Courthouse Immigration Arrests: Controversy, Legal History, and Implications

Background

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised voters, “One day, I will launch the largest deportation program of criminals in the history of America.” On his inauguration day, he published a directive for Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officers to use their own discretion when conducting immigration arrests. Since then, ICE officers have arrested immigrants in or around courthouses in at least seven different states.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

In a constitutional democracy, congressional oversight is not a courtesy—it is a cornerstone of the separation of powers enshrined in our founding documents.

Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has filed an amicus brief in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that ICE’s policy restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress “directly violates federal law.” Twelve lawmakers brought this suit to challenge ICE’s new requirement that elected officials provide seven days’ notice before visiting detention facilities—an edict that undermines transparency and shields executive agencies from scrutiny.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impartiality Under Fire: A Federal Judge’s Warning on Judicial Independence
brown mallet on gray wooden surface
Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

Impartiality Under Fire: A Federal Judge’s Warning on Judicial Independence

In times of democratic strain, clarity must come not only from scholars and journalists but also from those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution with impartiality and courage.

This second piece in a series in The Fulcrum, “Judges on Democracy,” where we invite retired federal judges to speak directly to the American public about the foundational principles of our legal system: the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the indispensable role of an independent judiciary to our democratic republic.

Keep ReadingShow less