The president’s justification for using an 18th-century law to deport immigrants is a flimsy pretext. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

For most of two centuries, when federal courts ruled, presidents complied — often unhappily, sometimes angrily, but always with respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

This week, a constitutional crisis loomed. The Trump administration used one of the most notorious laws on the books to deport 137 people on unconstitutional grounds. And it has chosen this issue to stage a showy defiance of the authority of the courts.

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 are among the most reviled laws in our national history. They criminalized dissent, abused civil liberties, and violated the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson decried the statutes as coming from a “reign of witches.” One of these laws is still on the books

[link removed]

, the Alien Enemies Act.

It has been used only three times: during the War of 1812, during World War I, and infamously, to imprison tens of thousands of noncitizens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent in internment camps during World War II.

Now this wartime law has been invoked in peacetime to deport Venezuelan immigrants to prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration alleges, without real evidence

[link removed]

or independent review, that these men are members of the dangerous drug trafficking gang Tren de Aragua. That gang deserves strong punishment, and criminal and immigration laws give the government ample power to detain, arrest, and deport its members.

By contrast, the Alien Enemies Act offers no due process, with no need to prove charges in a court of law. Just the say-so of an all-powerful government is enough. Allowing a president to detain and deport people without a fair hearing based solely on where they were born is too much power for one person.

The law can only be used when there is “a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion.” We are not at war with Venezuela. And immigration is not an “invasion.” Courts will likely rule against the administration. This is where the constitutional clash comes in.

On Saturday evening, in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered a stop to the deportations. He even ordered the government to turn around any planes carrying immigrants being removed under the law. Numerous press reports documented

[link removed]

how Trump administration officials decided to ignore the judge’s order. Some White House sources gleefully boasted about their impudence. Others piously insisted that no court order had been violated. The flights appear to have left the country while the hearing was still underway

[link removed]

.

El Salvador’s president snarked, “Oopsie . . . too late.

[link removed]

”

Here, two crises combine: a power grab that lets the government detain and deport at will with no due process and, if courts say no, the growing chance that the president will simply disregard a ruling he doesn’t like. It’s savvy, if cynical. We rightly revile drug gangs, so what better way to justify ignoring the law and the courts?

Yesterday afternoon, Judge Boasberg described

[link removed]

the government’s position as, “We don’t care, we’ll do what we want.”

Tom Homan, the White House’s chief border official, was heedless

[link removed]

. “We’re not stopping,” he said yesterday on Fox & Friends. “I don’t care what the judges think — I don’t care what the left thinks. We’re coming.”

But at the same time, other officials, such as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, insisted that the White House does follow court orders, just as it should. The lawyers representing the administration in court have said the same. Indeed, Donald Trump followed court rulings in his first term, even while fulminating against judges and the courts.

This all brings to mind the classic definition of hypocrisy: the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

If the courts rule against this power grab and the administration simply ignores them, judges have some tools

[link removed]

to force compliance. Congress could also play an important role. But a willful president must ultimately decide whether to follow the law. Then the most powerful force swaying him will be public outrage. Our Constitution is built on checks and balances. We must all insist that presidents cannot simply defy court orders they don’t like. Anything less means the end of the Constitution and the degradation of democracy.





How to Police Corruption at Top Levels of Government

The new administration is rife with unprecedented conflicts of interest. There are now several ways that Donald Trump can use his office to enrich himself and his family’s businesses, and presidential adviser Elon Musk holds sway over the agencies that regulate his companies. “Unfortunately within the executive branch, some of the tools that we typically look to to police conflicts are not going to be effective,” Eric Petry told Vox. “So that means we look to the other branches of government.” Read more

[link removed]

A Flurry of Attacks on Judicial Independence

Montana lawmakers are pushing at least 27 bills that would interfere with the state’s nonpartisan elected judiciary, including an unpopular proposal for judges to run in partisan elections. These bids to undermine judicial independence come after courts struck down a ban on gender-affirming care for minors and strengthened environmental review standards for fossil fuel–related permits. In State Court Report, the University of Montana’s Constance Van Kley argues that rather than “remaking the judiciary in their own (partisan) image,” legislators should use their referendum power to let voters decide these important issues. READ MORE

[link removed]

Election Security Takes a Hit

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has cut millions of dollars in federal funding to two important cybersecurity initiatives, including a nonprofit that helped election officials. It’s part of an alarming effort by the new administration to roll back federal support for election security that risks leaving our elections vulnerable to interference. “I have grave concern for state and local election officials and for the security of our elections going forward,” Lawrence Norden told the Associated Press. Read more

[link removed]





Coming Up

TOMORROW: VIRTUAL PARTNER EVENT

Ethical Challenges Facing Government Lawyers

[link removed]

Wednesday, March 19, 6–7:30 p.m. ET



Recent weeks have seen a series of high-profile resignations of career federal government lawyers faced with demands from new supervisors that they believed would violate their ethical obligations. Many are now asking about how they can and should respond in such situations. This event will bring together legal ethics scholars and lawyers with government experience to address the ethical issues arising under the new Trump administration.



To protect the privacy of those attending, the names of audience members will not be displayed, and questions for the Q&A portion of the event can be submitted anonymously. RSVP today

[link removed]



Produced in partnership with New York City Bar Association

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Kareem Crayton on enforcing the Voting Rights Act // VERITE NEWS

[link removed]

Douglas Keith on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race // MOTHER JONES

[link removed]

Elizabeth Goitein on the role of courts as a check on presidential power // ABC NEWS

[link removed]

Gowri Ramachandran on federal cuts to election security support // 12 NEWS

[link removed]

Katherine Yon Ebright on the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act // NPR

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]