Two federal judges from Texas and New York temporarily blocked on Wednesday Trump administrationThe use of alien enemies is carried out to deport Venezuelan citizens. This is the latest in a well-known legal story centered on the use of wartime immigration laws to immediately transfer certain migrants.
The plaintiff filed Two separate lawsuits He asked federal judges in Brownsville, Texas and federal judges in Orange County, New York to grant temporary restraining orders blocking their removal under the Wartime Immigration Act of 1798, reviewed by the Supreme Court a few days ago.
Brownsville US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. Temporary restraint order It was submitted on behalf of three Venezuelan nationals. The order temporarily blocks removal under the AEA and, according to his sentence text, “others who respondents claim that they will be removed under the declaration are subject to the declaration” from the district’s Elbale detention center.
Trump’s appointee Rodriguez took on the plaintiff’s allegation that allowing the law to be used for deportation would likely cause “immediate and irreparable injuries to individuals who have been removed.”
Judge Boasberg believes Trump’s administrators are lightly emptying.
Prison officials will defend the cell block at CECOT, the largest security prison in Tecolca in San Vicente, El Salvador, on Friday. (Alex Peña/Getty Images)
He further stated that “there is a substantial possibility that individuals cannot return the United States.”
Rodriguez said again in court on Friday that he will consider whether to extend the 14-day emergency order from both parties.
In a New York case filed in Manhattan federal court, US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein (Clinton’s appointee) sided with two Venezuelan citizens.
Venezuelan immigrants will walk after being deported from the US in Caracas, Venezuela on March 24th and arrive on flight. (Reuters/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria)
Both clients said “other clients who are similarly located in them” were “now “at risk of removal” without proper notice,” the lawyer said in the filing.
Unlike federal judges in Texas, Hellerstein’s decision has led to a direct response to whether alien enemy laws are the appropriate legal basis for deporting two individuals, but temporarily prevents the law from removing them.
The update follows a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on Monday that lifted a lower court restraining order, allowing the Trump administration to temporarily resume its use of alien enemy laws despite the new due-process protections for immigrants.
Judge blocks Trump administrators from firing federal probation workers
President Donald Trump signs the executive order in an oval office. (Anna Money Maker/Getty Images)
The High Court said individuals scheduled to be deported must have the opportunity to challenge the removal with enough time to do so in a US court.
However, the lawsuit must be conducted in the federal jurisdiction where the detainee is in custody. It should be noted that raising concerns among immigration advocates and bringing these cases individually is often difficult, and that usually occurs in court districts where most immigrants are detained.
“Alien enemy laws cannot be used under these circumstances, whether you are a gang member or not,” an ACLU lawyer said in a previous court application, saying that alien enemy laws are “military authorities.”
“It’s not supposed to be used in peacetime against gangs,” they said.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Trump’s appointee Rodriguez agreed with the plaintiff’s claim that “maintaining the status quo is necessary to provide parties with the ability to develop a more fulfilling record to consider interim injunctions and other requests for relief,” and “issues could result in immediate removal of Venezuelan alien outfits and boring injuries.”
“And there is a substantial possibility that an individual will not be able to return to the United States if the US accidentally deletes an individual to another country based on a declaration,” he said.
Trump administration lawyer He urged the courts to abolish the lower court’s decision, and in a Supreme Court submission, the lower court “subjected” the immigration agenda that “has been “refused” by the ability to protect the state from foreign terrorist organizations and take the risk of debilitating the effectiveness of sensitive foreign negotiations.”
