re: Judge rules Trump use of Alien Enemies Act for gangs is ‘unlawful’

This is not the form of government our forefathers gave us. There's a remedy though.

quote:

---

To decide whether an actual invasion has occurred would violate separation of powers.

---

I don't know how we prevent this scenario in the quote in that scenario:

quote:

---

Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA, and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the AEA,

---

The admin could literally define anything pursuant to the act and engage in otherwise illegal behaviors pretty easily.

quote:

---

Instead, the Court determines whether the factual statements in the Proclamation, taken as true, describe an “invasion” or “predatory
incursion” for purposes of the AEA.

---

And what if the statements are not true?

The act itself was used by FDR and there was no invading force sent by a gov.

So yes. 1812 is the last time a foreign nation sent troops.

quote:

---

And what if the statements are not true?

---

It is a political question. The Executive and the Legislature can fight it out if there is political disagreement.

quote:

---

This is false. Venezuela intentionally sent TdA members to the US. This has been proven.

---

Hence the emphasis on letter of the law rather than intent. A Venezuelan gang isn't going to overthrow the US government, but that doesn't make them a non-threat to US citizens. Any foreign "gang" should qualify as a foreign enemy when they arrive on US soil en masse.

quote:

---

nvasion typically and historically is in reference to military action. Not asylum seekers, some of whom I assume are good people.


You may call it an invasion but that is not the typical meaning of that word. The court has decided here that invasion is endorsed or enacted by a government or nation, rather than a gang.

So no.... an invasion has not occurred by that understanding. Again, you may feel differently but that's your issue.

---

What if hypothetically, there is historical and legal precedent where foreign invaders was a term applied to "pirates and barbarians"?
LINK

quote:

---

As I said, I imagine most analyses will be similar to the ruling in OP.

Same analysis (textualism, historical analysis, etc.) and same result.

People just got so emotionally invested in this sort of stupidity Megyn Kelly — Alien Enemies Act is not subject to judicial review. and lost all rationality on the issue.

---

I had figured that for most people it was a foregone conclusion that this is where Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act for this purpose was going to wind up. This ruling isn't a shock, even coming from a Republican/Trump appointed judge. At least it is a ruling of sound legal interpretation that has standing and reason, as opposed to some of the others we've seen lately.

Let it work its way to the USSC and have them rule. It very well could go either way, and if Trump has smart people around him whichever way it goes won't be a surprise.

Don’t count on it.

I dont think a district court judge gets to tell the executive branch what is and isn't an invasion. Seems like it's completely outside the judicial branch purview, that's a matter of national security, foreign relations, etc. id tell this guy to stay in his fricking lane