District Judge has standing over the CIC removing terrorists from US soil? Explain why.

I would think he has jurisdiction over immigration issues. What I don't understand is the standing of illegal Tren de Aragua thugs. I'm guessing the system gives them some due process before being hauled off.

quote:

---

District Judge has standing over the CIC removing terrorists from US soil? Explain why.

---

Standing is an issue for litigants, not judges.

Jurisdiction then. Trump is the Constitutional Chief Law Enforcement Official in the country. He is removing illegal criminal aliens as is his job to do.

Boasberg has no jurisdiction. HE should be told this and if he isn't happy he can take it up with SCOTUS.

quote:

---

I'm guessing

---

Which you do 99.9% of the time!

Nope

I would speculate that a president's order takes precedence over the order of a judge or even a justice, at least until such time that the president is removed from office.

quote:

---

For those who disagree. I would like to hear why this logic is flawed.

---

Easy. You are intentionally avoiding the issue. The Trump administration can detain and deport any person unlawfully within the United States using the ordinary law. All they have to do is hold a brief hearing and show that the person is not legally present, then the person can be removed. There is no dispute about that whatsoever.

The case presently invoking the judicial review is Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to justify the elimination of due process. This Act is a war power. We are not at war and have not been invaded by a foreign country. The power does not exist. Here is the statutory language at issue:

quote:

---

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.

50 U.S.C.A. § 21

---

That is the issue. We are not at war. We have not been invaded.

Trump can use the ordinary law to do exactly what he is doing. However, Trump is testing the courts intentionally to see if constitutional due process applies to Trump. And quite frankly, every American should hope that due process still exists in this country.

quote:

---

We have not been invaded

---

False

from grok:

quote:

---

If you were a federal district judge would you have power to rule on the alien enemies act or as the scotus ruled that the act is not a judicial review able issue?

---

quote:

---

As a federal district judge, I would not have the power to rule on the Alien Enemies Act in the sense of reviewing the president’s determinations under it. The Supreme Court has ruled that the act, specifically the president’s actions pursuant to it, is not a judicially reviewable issue. This conclusion stems from precedent, notably the 1948 case Ludecke v. Watkins, where the Court held that the president’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act to apprehend, restrain, or remove enemy aliens during a declared war is a matter of executive discretion and not subject to judicial review.
Understanding the Alien Enemies Act
The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, grants the president broad powers during a declared war to deal with aliens who are citizens or subjects of a hostile nation. This could include actions like detention or deportation. The law is distinct from other wartime measures, such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II under Executive Order 9066, which applied to U.S. citizens and is not directly tied to this statute.
Supreme Court Precedent
In Ludecke v. Watkins, the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the deportation of a German national after World War II. The petitioner argued that the war had ended, rendering the act inapplicable, but the Court deferred to the president’s determination that hostilities persisted. The ruling emphasized that such decisions are political judgments within the executive’s wartime authority, not suitable for courts to second-guess. This established that the president’s specific actions under the act are insulated from judicial oversight.
Implications for a Federal District Judge
As a federal district judge, I am bound by Supreme Court precedent. The ruling in Ludecke v. Watkins means I lack the authority to review the merits of the president’s decisions under the Alien Enemies Act—such as whether an individual qualifies as an enemy alien or whether the action taken was appropriate. Even in cases involving procedural questions, like a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court has upheld this deference, as seen in Ludecke, where a habeas challenge was denied.
Could the Act Itself Be Challenged?
Theoretically, courts have the power to review the constitutionality of statutes, including the Alien Enemies Act. For instance, one might argue it violates due process under the Fifth Amendment. However, the act’s long history—over two centuries—and its acceptance in wartime contexts, combined with the Supreme Court’s deference to the political branches in national security matters, make it highly unlikely that such a challenge would succeed. The Ludecke decision implicitly upholds the act’s validity, further limiting a lower court’s ability to rule against it.
Interpreting the Query
The query’s phrasing—“would you have power to rule on the alien enemies act or as the scotus ruled that the act is not a judicial review able issue?”—is slightly ambiguous, possibly due to a missing comma. It could mean:
“Do I have the power to rule on the act, or has SCOTUS ruled it non-reviewable?” Here, the answer is that SCOTUS has ruled it non-reviewable.
“Do I have the power despite the SCOTUS ruling?” As a lower court judge, I am bound by precedent, so the answer remains no.
In either case, the outcome is the same: I do not have the power to rule on the president’s actions under the act.
Conclusion

Given the Supreme Court’s ruling that the president’s determinations under the Alien Enemies Act are not subject to judicial review, I, as a federal district judge, would lack the authority to rule on such matters. This limitation reflects the judiciary’s traditional deference to the executive in wartime national security decisions. Therefore, the answer to the query is clear: I would not have the power to rule on the Alien Enemies Act in this context.

---

quote:

---

Sure he does.

---

This is the consistent response to the question I posed. No one on the left can offer a coherent educated response to Miller’s claims.