SCOTUS, here it comes (Act 2)
-
A federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump cannot use an 18th-century wartime law to speed the deportations of people his administration accuses of membership in a Venezuelan gang, blocking a signature administration push that is destined for a final showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country, agreed with immigrant rights lawyers and lower court judges who argued the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was not intended to be used against gangs like Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan group Trump targeted in his March invocation.
The decision bars deportations from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In the majority were U.S. Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Joe Biden appointee. Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, dissented.
The majority opinion said Trump’s allegations about Tren de Aragua do not meet the historical levels of national conflict that Congress intended for the act.
“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” the judges wrote.
In a lengthy dissent, Oldham complained his two colleagues were second-guessing Trump’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, realms where courts usually give the president great deference.
“The majority’s approach to this case is not only unprecedented—it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent,” Oldham wrote.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-alien-enemies-act-venezuela-9aa913b03c09662aeecdde42901f7706
-
Methinks Oldham slept through law school.
Edit: Several law schools, as it turns out.
-
In a lengthy dissent, Oldham complained his two colleagues were second-guessing Trump’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, realms where courts usually give the president great deference.
Silly man. The courts usually do lots of things, but he only needs look at the Roberts court to see that it doesn't make any difference. They'll decide what outcome they want then piece together a "history" to justify it.
