While I appreciate the detailed timeline, there is one key error in this report. No war is required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. It says in relevant part:
"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 makes pub…
While I appreciate the detailed timeline, there is one key error in this report. No war is required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. It says in relevant part:
"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 makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies." An invasion or predatory incursion triggers the Act.
Actually, there’s more than one error in the timeline. The judges verbal orders differed from his written orders. There was another that came right to mind when reading but it’s lost in my head and I’m not rereading to find it.
Edit to add the other: Case law. Why does everyone always ignore case law? In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ludecke v. Watkins that the government had the authority to deport a legally admitted German resident under the Alien Enemy Act, even though World War II had ended.
There were periods during in American history when alien agitators were deported on the spot-- during the French Revolution, when the U.S. feared the terror would spread here and people would start losing their heads - we were NOT at war but we rightfully feared contamination; during waves of Communist and socialist immigration -- cut off. Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision and a SCOTUS order not to imprison confederates.
Maybe the time to get a clear definition of “war” was before the Korean not-a-war, the Vietnam not-a-war, or any of the various Middle East not-a-wars.
Boasberg 2002: Associate Judge in the District of Columbia superior court serving in the Civil and Criminal Division and the Domestic Violence branch
2011: Appointed to the court by Obama, unanimous Senate
2014: Appointed to the FISA court by Chief Justice Roberts, presiding over it 2020 to May 2021.
2023: Chief Judge on the District Court
I don’t need to fit Trump’s political dates in here, they are obvious. However, I will add this, Boasberg presided over 70 J6 cases, both guilty pleas and conviction at trial. In nearly every instance, Boasberg imposed prison time even for the petty offense of ‘parading’ in the Capitol. He is also he one that used a bogus made-up charge that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court to get defendants to plead guilty.
Boasberg was ALREADY directly in the line of fire over at the new DOJ long before this breach - for letting alphabet agency miscreants walk - including the lawyer who took the fall for the real criminals. Had Kevin faced a lengthy sentence he might have squealed on the higher ups. Boasberg made sure Kevin didn't. The judge now needs to preemptively reconstruct himself as future victim of Trump retaliation, not career miscreant and swamp-creature himself, and chief lackey of the deep state. Now he's bringing Roberts in to cover for him. Boasberg is well-paid for his services via his wife's lucrative NGO contracts.
Boasberg roomed with Kavanaugh while both in law school at Yale. Boasberg was selected by Roberts to sit on the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a special court created in 1996. It consists of five Article III judges, selected by the Chief Justice of the United States. Its job is to determine whether aliens (non-citizens) should be deported from the United States on the grounds that they are terrorists. He was there from 2020 to 2025.
He was also was appointed to oversee FISA court reforms following the irregularities and criminal offenses discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz in his Crossfire Hurricane investigation report.
In January 2020 Boasberg selected former Justice Department official David S. Kris to oversee the reform of FBI procedures ordered by the court. Kris was in the Harvard Law class of 1991, Barack Obama’s graduating class, and was a national security adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008. He was on the Obama transition team after the 2008 election, and from that position received his DOJ appointment in 2009. He is also best buddies with John Brennan.
There is a secret club of judges and the truth will eventually come out. They can’t suicide everyone.
What about Section 2? Section 2 sets forth the duty of the courts (following the public proclamation by the President that you've described in Section 1), "to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States" 50 U.S.C. § 23.
Your selective recitation of the executive's authority leaves out the checks and balances of the judiciary.
Generally speaking, I do not want the President (whoever it may be) to have the power to scoop people up and send them to a foreign prison without a hearing determining their status as Enemy Aliens. If that means that criminals get a hearing or a second hearing, so be it. Liberty!
To state the obvious, citizens of the US are entitled to the protections of the US Constitution. How can people who are not US citizens and are in the US only because they have broken its laws and thereby spurned the Constitution [illegal aliens] claim any right to its protections?
Is it obvious? I'd say not. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that illegal aliens are entitled to due process. The Fifth Amendment protects "persons" not "citizens." There is also an obvious and good *reason* for this, however: a hearing is needed to make sure that the accused is indeed here illegally and, subject to any additional protection afforded by Congress, can be deported.
Imagine for a moment that the ICE under the next Democratic executive (hard to imagine right now, but bear with me) accuses you of crimes and of being an illegal alien enemy. Agents barge into your home, arrest you, put you on a plane and intern you in a prison complex in Cuba.
You'd want a hearing to determine your status before being sent off, right? Even though the government claims that you are an illegal alien...
I believe you are reading that incorrectly. I think it sets out the requirement of the courts to act in support of the President as set forth in Section 1. I do not believe section 2 represents a brake on the authority of the President.
The accused get a hearing before the court. If President Biden or Whoever had accused you of being an Enemy Alien wouldn’t you like to have a hearing before being sent to a foreign prison complex?
The point is not what I might "like". The point is the reading of the law. From section 2 you note, ""to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened". The act requires the participation of the courts and for that matter law enforcement in support of POTUS.
But your point is well taken. Certainly the judiciary has duties and is part in the process. But seriously, do you view the judiciary as a mere rubber stamp on executive power? The statute gives the accused the right to "a full examination and hearing."
And given the language of the statute, it appears that the President has only the power to make a public proclamation. It is up to the judiciary to take the next steps, apprehension, etc. It looks like President Trump seriously overstepped his bounds, even under the statute he has invoked.
Correct. Matt, who is not a lawyer and has never to my knowledge been consulted on matters of law in any jurisdiction begins with this astonishing and borderline dishonest claim "The Trump Administration has to make the case that its war on the Tren de Aragua gang is a real war"
I'm not a lawyer. Pam Bondi and others at the DOJ are. Stephen Miller demolished the press critics by confirming that Trump and his team had conferred with the DOJ to ensure that the deportations were a/legal & b/not subject to judicial review. Period.
A fingernail of investigation mixed with an electron of curiosity might have led Matt to ask: "Why did this particular judge decide to insert himself in this particular case, and why now?"
You are nitpicking. Matt regularly consults with lawyers. I never saw anywhere in the article where Matt wrote "I did not consult with a lawyer while writing this." What makes you presume that he did not?
And if he didn't; so what? I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, Matt's not a lawyer. And what if someone who is a lawyer delivers an opinion? It would be quite easy to find a different lawyer with a different opinion.
I'm questioning the absence of any such reference. Moreover, I'm not certain Matt did any/much of the background research for this piece.
Matt's problem is that he makes a claim that is not supported by fact, as numerous others have noted, choosing to address only one of three clearly-stated conditions for the the application of the act.
Compare sentences 1. and 2. so you'll understand.
1."To apply the act, conditions: a, b, AND c must be met."
2."To apply the act, conditions: a, b, OR, c must be met."
Do I have to explain the difference to you? I hope not. The act clearly states: " war, OR any invasion OR predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, OR threatened against the territory..." Now maybe Matt has really sound legal reasons for ignoring conditions "b' and 'c'. That's where expert legal opinion needs to be formally introduced into the discussion - Get it?
My regard for Matt remains undiminished. This piece simply isn't up to his usual standard. Sorry!
For those with more legal knowledge than myself, can affiliation with a gang be substituted for a foreign nation or government? What about the minority party of a foreign country?
As I read the statute Matt has provided, two things must happen before deportation and certainly before imprisonment:
1. Citizens of a foreign nation, which nation has declared war or has made some sort of invasion or excursion into the U.S., in case no declared war exists;
2. The deportation cannot take place unless there is first a judicial evidentiary hearing.
Here, Venezuela is not at war with us and is not, as a nation, making some sort of excursion into the U.S. and therefore the first requirement is not satisfied. The suspects might be violating US law, but not this law.
Second, the U S was deporting these aliens without the necessary judicial evidentiary hearing.
Thus, the Court issued an order that no deportation or imprisonment could occur without the necessary and legally required hearing thereon. It was the government clearly violating the law by flying these people to a foreign prison when the requirements of the statute had not been met. Every self-respecting law abiding judge in America—far right to far left —would be constitutionally bound to grant a TRO under these circumstances and would only be subject to impeachment if they went along with the government’s illegal actions.
No actual war needs to be ongoing but "an invasion or predatory incursion" must be being "perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government". This is definitely NOT the case, so your argument (and Trump's) falls flat on its face.
Obviously, the war in Europe “ended” on VE Day in May of 1945 with the signing of various agreements by the parties, but the Declaration of War against Germany was not rescinded by Congress until 1952. I agree the Alien and Enemies Act of 1798 does not require a war, nor does it require that Congress declare a “War”. undeclared wars such as Korea and Vietnam are known as wars and would seem to satisfy the requirements within Section 1 of the Act.
While I appreciate the detailed timeline, there is one key error in this report. No war is required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. It says in relevant part:
"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 makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies." An invasion or predatory incursion triggers the Act.
Actually, there’s more than one error in the timeline. The judges verbal orders differed from his written orders. There was another that came right to mind when reading but it’s lost in my head and I’m not rereading to find it.
Edit to add the other: Case law. Why does everyone always ignore case law? In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ludecke v. Watkins that the government had the authority to deport a legally admitted German resident under the Alien Enemy Act, even though World War II had ended.
I think the judge saying versus signing is really important, even if he does not. Which just goes to prove what an imprecise douche he is.
There were periods during in American history when alien agitators were deported on the spot-- during the French Revolution, when the U.S. feared the terror would spread here and people would start losing their heads - we were NOT at war but we rightfully feared contamination; during waves of Communist and socialist immigration -- cut off. Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision and a SCOTUS order not to imprison confederates.
Ludecke v Watkins is one of the scariest decisions that I’ve ever read. It needs to be forgotten.
Maybe the time to get a clear definition of “war” was before the Korean not-a-war, the Vietnam not-a-war, or any of the various Middle East not-a-wars.
I must extend this time line to add context.
Boasberg 2002: Associate Judge in the District of Columbia superior court serving in the Civil and Criminal Division and the Domestic Violence branch
2011: Appointed to the court by Obama, unanimous Senate
2014: Appointed to the FISA court by Chief Justice Roberts, presiding over it 2020 to May 2021.
2023: Chief Judge on the District Court
I don’t need to fit Trump’s political dates in here, they are obvious. However, I will add this, Boasberg presided over 70 J6 cases, both guilty pleas and conviction at trial. In nearly every instance, Boasberg imposed prison time even for the petty offense of ‘parading’ in the Capitol. He is also he one that used a bogus made-up charge that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court to get defendants to plead guilty.
Boasberg was ALREADY directly in the line of fire over at the new DOJ long before this breach - for letting alphabet agency miscreants walk - including the lawyer who took the fall for the real criminals. Had Kevin faced a lengthy sentence he might have squealed on the higher ups. Boasberg made sure Kevin didn't. The judge now needs to preemptively reconstruct himself as future victim of Trump retaliation, not career miscreant and swamp-creature himself, and chief lackey of the deep state. Now he's bringing Roberts in to cover for him. Boasberg is well-paid for his services via his wife's lucrative NGO contracts.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/18/us-news/judge-blocking-trump-deportation-flights-gave-slap-on-wrist-to-fbi-lawyer-in-russiagate/
Boasberg roomed with Kavanaugh while both in law school at Yale. Boasberg was selected by Roberts to sit on the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a special court created in 1996. It consists of five Article III judges, selected by the Chief Justice of the United States. Its job is to determine whether aliens (non-citizens) should be deported from the United States on the grounds that they are terrorists. He was there from 2020 to 2025.
He was also was appointed to oversee FISA court reforms following the irregularities and criminal offenses discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz in his Crossfire Hurricane investigation report.
In January 2020 Boasberg selected former Justice Department official David S. Kris to oversee the reform of FBI procedures ordered by the court. Kris was in the Harvard Law class of 1991, Barack Obama’s graduating class, and was a national security adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008. He was on the Obama transition team after the 2008 election, and from that position received his DOJ appointment in 2009. He is also best buddies with John Brennan.
There is a secret club of judges and the truth will eventually come out. They can’t suicide everyone.
https://x.com/pepesgrandma/status/1902750686145810716
What about Section 2? Section 2 sets forth the duty of the courts (following the public proclamation by the President that you've described in Section 1), "to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States" 50 U.S.C. § 23.
Your selective recitation of the executive's authority leaves out the checks and balances of the judiciary.
We know that those on the plane in TX already were duly apprehended and convened for removal. They had their court day.
Did they? The language in the statute appears to require a court hearing after the President's public proclamation.
Are you saying that you want them to get two hearings or do we all understand that the intent was for those pinched after the the proclamation?
Generally speaking, I do not want the President (whoever it may be) to have the power to scoop people up and send them to a foreign prison without a hearing determining their status as Enemy Aliens. If that means that criminals get a hearing or a second hearing, so be it. Liberty!
To state the obvious, citizens of the US are entitled to the protections of the US Constitution. How can people who are not US citizens and are in the US only because they have broken its laws and thereby spurned the Constitution [illegal aliens] claim any right to its protections?
Is it obvious? I'd say not. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that illegal aliens are entitled to due process. The Fifth Amendment protects "persons" not "citizens." There is also an obvious and good *reason* for this, however: a hearing is needed to make sure that the accused is indeed here illegally and, subject to any additional protection afforded by Congress, can be deported.
Imagine for a moment that the ICE under the next Democratic executive (hard to imagine right now, but bear with me) accuses you of crimes and of being an illegal alien enemy. Agents barge into your home, arrest you, put you on a plane and intern you in a prison complex in Cuba.
You'd want a hearing to determine your status before being sent off, right? Even though the government claims that you are an illegal alien...
What statutes are you talking about, the one that says they get a day in court?
Excellent point
I believe you are reading that incorrectly. I think it sets out the requirement of the courts to act in support of the President as set forth in Section 1. I do not believe section 2 represents a brake on the authority of the President.
The accused get a hearing before the court. If President Biden or Whoever had accused you of being an Enemy Alien wouldn’t you like to have a hearing before being sent to a foreign prison complex?
The point is not what I might "like". The point is the reading of the law. From section 2 you note, ""to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened". The act requires the participation of the courts and for that matter law enforcement in support of POTUS.
I for one like having my liberty.
But your point is well taken. Certainly the judiciary has duties and is part in the process. But seriously, do you view the judiciary as a mere rubber stamp on executive power? The statute gives the accused the right to "a full examination and hearing."
And given the language of the statute, it appears that the President has only the power to make a public proclamation. It is up to the judiciary to take the next steps, apprehension, etc. It looks like President Trump seriously overstepped his bounds, even under the statute he has invoked.
They already had their day in court
Correct. Matt, who is not a lawyer and has never to my knowledge been consulted on matters of law in any jurisdiction begins with this astonishing and borderline dishonest claim "The Trump Administration has to make the case that its war on the Tren de Aragua gang is a real war"
I'm not a lawyer. Pam Bondi and others at the DOJ are. Stephen Miller demolished the press critics by confirming that Trump and his team had conferred with the DOJ to ensure that the deportations were a/legal & b/not subject to judicial review. Period.
A fingernail of investigation mixed with an electron of curiosity might have led Matt to ask: "Why did this particular judge decide to insert himself in this particular case, and why now?"
That's the story and that's the question.
Just to be antagonistic, multiple times on America This Week, Matt has talked about working with different lawyers to help dig through a case.
Exactly as we’d expect when Matt or any journalist prepares well. And yet, Matt makes no such claim in this article about about a rarely used law.
Strange, huh?
You are nitpicking. Matt regularly consults with lawyers. I never saw anywhere in the article where Matt wrote "I did not consult with a lawyer while writing this." What makes you presume that he did not?
And if he didn't; so what? I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, Matt's not a lawyer. And what if someone who is a lawyer delivers an opinion? It would be quite easy to find a different lawyer with a different opinion.
I'm questioning the absence of any such reference. Moreover, I'm not certain Matt did any/much of the background research for this piece.
Matt's problem is that he makes a claim that is not supported by fact, as numerous others have noted, choosing to address only one of three clearly-stated conditions for the the application of the act.
Compare sentences 1. and 2. so you'll understand.
1."To apply the act, conditions: a, b, AND c must be met."
2."To apply the act, conditions: a, b, OR, c must be met."
Do I have to explain the difference to you? I hope not. The act clearly states: " war, OR any invasion OR predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, OR threatened against the territory..." Now maybe Matt has really sound legal reasons for ignoring conditions "b' and 'c'. That's where expert legal opinion needs to be formally introduced into the discussion - Get it?
My regard for Matt remains undiminished. This piece simply isn't up to his usual standard. Sorry!
For those with more legal knowledge than myself, can affiliation with a gang be substituted for a foreign nation or government? What about the minority party of a foreign country?
My question exactly. I didn't think a gang rose to the occasion of foreign government.
Well, I think it would qualify if they were released from prisons by Maduro yo invade the US. How big does an army of terror have to be?
Some countries major exports are drugs or the trafficking of and these gangs or cartels pretty much control the government. We don't want that here.
As I read the statute Matt has provided, two things must happen before deportation and certainly before imprisonment:
1. Citizens of a foreign nation, which nation has declared war or has made some sort of invasion or excursion into the U.S., in case no declared war exists;
2. The deportation cannot take place unless there is first a judicial evidentiary hearing.
Here, Venezuela is not at war with us and is not, as a nation, making some sort of excursion into the U.S. and therefore the first requirement is not satisfied. The suspects might be violating US law, but not this law.
Second, the U S was deporting these aliens without the necessary judicial evidentiary hearing.
Thus, the Court issued an order that no deportation or imprisonment could occur without the necessary and legally required hearing thereon. It was the government clearly violating the law by flying these people to a foreign prison when the requirements of the statute had not been met. Every self-respecting law abiding judge in America—far right to far left —would be constitutionally bound to grant a TRO under these circumstances and would only be subject to impeachment if they went along with the government’s illegal actions.
Just as we would either deport or arrest a spy.
No actual war needs to be ongoing but "an invasion or predatory incursion" must be being "perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government". This is definitely NOT the case, so your argument (and Trump's) falls flat on its face.
Obviously, the war in Europe “ended” on VE Day in May of 1945 with the signing of various agreements by the parties, but the Declaration of War against Germany was not rescinded by Congress until 1952. I agree the Alien and Enemies Act of 1798 does not require a war, nor does it require that Congress declare a “War”. undeclared wars such as Korea and Vietnam are known as wars and would seem to satisfy the requirements within Section 1 of the Act.