Court ruling blocking Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act hailed a victory'

"A court ruling that blocked Donald Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans he alleged were part of a criminal gang has been hailed as a victory for the rule of law. In a 2-1 decision on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 5th US circuit court of appeals issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the Trump administration using the 1798 law to justify rapid deportations."

"Circuit judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority, rejected the administration's assertion that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua had engaged in a predatory incursion on US soil. The Alien Enemies Act gives the government expansive powers to detain and deport citizens of hostile foreign nations, but only in times of war or during an invasion or predatory incursion."

"Norman Eisen, the founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, which has been helping lead national court fights against the Trump administration, said: This was a striking result from the extremely conservative Fifth Circuit, affirming what is obvious to any American who looks outside their window."

"There is no invasion by Venezuela or its gangs that authorises Trump's declaration of such under the Alien Enemies Act. Indeed, that was also the view of more than 20 conservatives from every administration, from Nixon to Trump 1, who we at Democracy Defenders Fund represented in filing a brief explaining that this bogus declaration was a betrayal of conservative principles."

In a 2-1 decision the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify rapid deportations of Venezuelans. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick concluded the administration had not shown that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua carried out a predatory incursion on US soil. The Alien Enemies Act authorizes detention and deportation of citizens of hostile nations only during war, invasion, or predatory incursion. Legal advocates, including the Democracy Defenders Fund, welcomed the ruling as lacking legal basis for the March 14 presidential proclamation and as a judicial check on expansion of presidential power.

Read at www.theguardian.com