A U.S. appeals court judge recently drew a striking comparison between the treatment of Venezuelan migrants deported by the Trump administration and the deportation of Nazis during World War II. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett stated that Nazis were given more rights to contest their removal from the U.S. than Venezuelan migrants targeted for deportation under the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law from the 18th century.
During a contentious hearing, Judge Millett pressed government lawyer Drew Ensign about the rights of Venezuelans, who were deported under this law after being accused of membership in the Tren de Aragua gang, a claim disputed by many of their families. Millett questioned whether these individuals had adequate time to challenge the accusations before being sent back to El Salvador.
“Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here,” Millett remarked, a statement that Ensign disagreed with, dismissing the analogy.
The Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, a law not used in U.S. history since World War II, has drawn significant attention. The law, which was previously applied to Japanese, German, and Italian immigrants during the war, is now being used to target alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The administration is currently appealing a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who imposed a two-week ban on deportations under the law, arguing that individuals must be allowed to contest their removal before facing deportation.
Among those deported were Venezuelan migrants, including a professional soccer player whose family claims his gang affiliation was based on a misinterpreted tattoo of a crown, a symbol of his favorite team, Real Madrid. Lawyers for the deported individuals argue that the U.S. government wrongly labeled many of them as gang members, undermining their right to due process.
Judge Millett, appointed by President Barack Obama, is part of a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is hearing the Trump administration’s appeal. The panel also includes Judges Justin Walker and Karen Henderson, both appointed by Republican presidents. The court has yet to announce when it will issue its decision.
The case has become a high-profile legal battle over executive power. With the Trump administration’s broad use of executive actions, federal courts have increasingly become the check on the president’s authority, particularly as the Republican-majority Congress has largely supported his agenda. The administration recently invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid revealing further details about deportation flights, citing national security concerns.
The legal conflict intensified after President Trump called for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment over his ruling halting deportations. In response, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement affirming the proper channels for challenging judicial decisions, emphasizing the importance of appeals over impeachment.
The Trump administration’s position in the case is that judicial intervention in national security matters, such as deportation decisions, constitutes overreach. However, civil rights advocates argue that denying due process to individuals, particularly those with disputed gang ties, should not be dismissed as a national security issue.
As the case continues, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has called for the return of the deported individuals if it is found that their removal violated Boasberg’s order. Meanwhile, Boasberg is considering whether the Trump administration has violated his ruling by proceeding with deportation flights despite the temporary ban.
The unfolding legal drama underscores the tension between executive power and individual rights, highlighting the challenges faced by Venezuelan migrants caught in the crosshairs of a controversial deportation strategy.
Related topics:
