White House Admits Not Complying with Court injunction Suspending Venezuelan Removals
The White House is denying accusations of disregarding a judge's order to halt the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, a move that could escalate yet another legal showdown over the administration's assertions of extensive presidential power, nudging the nation closer to a constitutional crisis.
This tumultuous situation surrounds Venezuelan immigrants expelled using the rarely invoked 18th-century law—the Alien Enemies Act—another contentious decision potentially representing presidential overreach by President Donald Trump.
The drama unfolded when US District Judge James Boasberg temporarily halted the deportations to evaluate the implications of employing the act. Boasberg even stated in court that planes transporting migrants should return to US soil. However, on Sunday, the administration reported that 250 deportees, alleged to have ties with the Tren de Aragua gang, were in Salvadorian custody.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's carefully worded statement on Sunday evening raised questions about whether officials flouted the judge's orders. Claiming the administration did not "refuse to comply" with the court order, Leavitt argued that the order lacked a legal basis and was issued after migrants had already left US territory.
However, Leavitt's comments about a judge's "written" order, the migrants having left US soil but not specifying the exact timing of their arrival in El Salvador, and referring to "aircraft carriers" are confounding. White Houses do not have the power to determine whether court orders are lawful.
The exact sequence of events and how it corresponds to the deportation operation remains unclear. Should the administration have defied the judge, it would potentially create the most serious legal quagmire of the administration yet and exacerbate concerns that an authoritarian presidency could openly defy the rule of law.
Trump is utilizing his power now, leaving those who might curb him—including the courts and political opponents—to question later, post his actions' irreversible impact. The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to hasten deportations represents a significant step as it is intended for wartime use only.
Elsewhere, a crackdown on student protests, marked by the arrest of a Palestinian green card holder, is being justified on the pretext that his anti-Israel views harm U.S. foreign policy interests. Critics argue it aims to squash First Amendment rights and academic dissent.
Trump's abrupt shutdown of the taxpayer-funded international radio and television service, Voice of America, over the weekend, reignited debates about his power to ignore laws passed by Congress, following his prior accusations that media outlets lacking MAGA views are "corrupt and illegal."
Many voters sent Trump to Washington to dismantle institutions they believe do not reflect their culture, values, and material interests. Polls indicate that among his supporters, Trump's actions are popular. His mantra is to act swiftly, as limits on presidential power are mostly retrospective—allowing Trump to achieve desired results before being stopped.
Deportations to El Salvador Spark Legal Battle
The 1798 Alien Enemies Act bears a history of abuses that have stained American history. It tarnished the reputation of second President John Adams and was employed to justify the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
The text of the law allows it to be invoked whenever a war is declared between the United States and "any foreign nation or government" or when "an 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 issues a proclamation to that effect.
However, the United States is not at war with Venezuela, and while Trump frequently claims the country is subject to an "invasion" by undocumented migrants, criminals, and gang members, Congress—not the president—has the Constitutional responsibility to declare war. Hence, the question immediately became whether Trump overstepped the powers of the law and his office with the deportations.
Boasberg's TRO aimed to create time to explore these critical legal arguments. Republican Sen. Mike Rounds told CNN's Jake Tapper that he is uncertain whether the administration defied the judge's order to halt the deportations. However, Rounds added, "We expect the executive branch to follow the law."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on Sunday that over 250 "alien enemy members of Tren de Aragua" were sent to El Salvador to be held "in their very good jails at a fair price." The U.S. is reportedly paying $6 million for their accommodation.
The timing of the various court orders and the deportations is under scrutiny now. Boasberg initially blocked the administration from deporting five individuals who filed a legal challenge. After a subsequent hearing, he expanded his action to cover all noncitizens in US custody subject to Trump's proclamation.
However, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other senior Department of Justice officials argued in a Sunday filing that "some gang members" were deported between Boasberg's two orders on Saturday. They stated that the five initial plaintiffs were not removed, and the administration has already initiated appeals against the judge's moves.
The case is significant beyond the judge's instructions. International law generally prohibits deporting individuals to places where they may face persecution, and the brutal, crowded conditions faced by inmates in El Salvador could meet that threshold. Additionally, the government of President Nayib Bukele—whom Trump officials frequently praise—faces accusations of constitutional and human rights abuses that contrast sharply with recent American foreign policy values.
There are also concerns about why Trump is employing the Alien Enemies Act, given that other mechanisms exist to expel gang members. The administration's lack of transparency about the identities of those deported raises the possibility that undocumented immigrants who are not gang members are being deprived of their legal rights, swept up in the purge, and sent to a grim fate in El Salvador's custody.
“Giving them this wide latitude to just ... claim that anybody is anything is wrong,” Texas Democratic Rep Jasmine Crockett told Tapper. “We do have courts, we do have processes, we do have laws, and we should just go ahead and use those.”
Arrest of Green Card Holder Raises Free Speech Concerns
The administration is also facing scrutiny over the handling of the detention of former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian refugee whose green card was revoked over his involvement in the protests last year over the Israel-Hamas war. Was Khalil arrested for activities that could be legally categorized as material support for a terrorist organization, or is he being detained in violation of his First Amendment rights as a legal permanent resident of the United States? His supporters claim he was targeted solely for speaking up against Israel's attacks on Gaza after the October 7, 2023 attack.
But Rubio argued on CBS "Face the Nation" that it was "very simple" to see that Khalil lied when applying for his green card about his future political activities, which included participating in pro-Hamas events. "We never should have allowed him in, in the first place" Rubio contended, adding that Khalil's activities ran "counter to the foreign policy interests of the United States of America."
The case is likely to focus on whether immigration-related prohibitions, such as endorsing or espousing terrorist activities or persuading others to do so, apply to a legal permanent resident already residing in the United States. Rubio did not provide evidence in the interview that Khalil had committed a crime or had materially supported a terrorist organization or espoused terrorism. If Khalil was merely expressing support for Hamas in general, he may be exercising his right to free speech—a right protected by the Constitution and that cannot be infringed upon by the government.
This case has raised concerns because it raises the possibility that any immigrant who is not a citizen could be arrested and deported if they express views that the president or his government determine are contrary to the interests of U.S. foreign policy.
Khalil's case is being litigated in the courts. A federal judge has blocked his deportation, and he remains in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. Like the matter of the alleged Venezuelan gang members, the case seems destined to eventually reach the Supreme Court—which will face an unprecedented influx of cases that will define both this administration and the presidency in the future.
All cases contain similar questions in varying forms: Does Trump possess the vast authority that he has assigned to himself in the most aggressive attempt to wield power in the history of the modern presidency? The president isn't waiting for answers. He is intent on enacting far-reaching changes to American governance, values, and culture that may be difficult to reverse by any future president or Congress.
- The administration's deportation of Venezuelan immigrants, allegedly connected to the Tren de Aragua gang and facilitated by the Alien Enemies Act, is likely to escalate a legal battle over presidential overreach, as the order to halt deportations by a US District Judge James Boasberg remains unclear in relation to the sequence of events and timings.
- The sudden arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green card holder, has sparked a debate about First Amendment rights and academic dissent, as critics argue that his detention could be an attempt to suppress free speech and questionable given his legal status as a permanent resident of the United States.
- In both cases, the Trump administration espouses contentious decisions and, by employing the Alien Enemies Act and the shifting of timing, likely risks facing accusations of disregarding court instructions and the rule of law, which can potentially create serious legal quagmires and push the nation closer to a constitutional crisis.
