BREAKING: Trump-appointee Fed judge in PA finds that Trump's Alien Enemies Act proclamation is properly invoked, but ...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Follow
BREAKING: Federal judge in Pennsylvania, a Trump appointee, finds that Trump's Alien Enemies Act proclamation is properly invoked against a designated "Foreign Terrorist Organization," but that insufficient process is currently being given in the implementation of the AEA proclamation.

The Proclamation Describes a "Predatory Incursion" By TdA
In light of all of the foregoing, this Court reaches the following definition of "predatory incursion" under the AEA: "a hostile entry into the United States by a cohesive group of individuals, such as a military detachment or a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, who are
united by a common goal of causing significant disruption to the public safety-whether that be the safety of persons, property, or pecuniary interests- of those within the United States." The Court finds that that definition is faithful to the meaning of "predatory incursions" in 1798, but it
also accounts for new applications given "changes in the world." Wis. Ctr. Ltd., 585 U.S. at 284.
ALT

Therefore, the Court will accept as true President Trump's conclusion, via the Proclamation, that TdA is acting "at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime
in Venezuela." 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.
As a result of this conclusion, this Court is in full accord with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which held as follows on this very issue:
Although the Proclamation focuses on TdA's activities in the United States, it places control of those activities in Maduro, acting in his claimed role of President of Venezuela. In other words, the Proclamation declares that the country of Venezuela, through Maduro, directs and controls TdA's activities in the United States ... As a result, the Court concludes that the Proclamation places responsibility for TdA's actions in the United States on the Venezuelan government, which satisfies this aspect of the AEA.
J.A.V. v. Trump, No. 1:25-CV-072, 2025 WL 1257450, at *17 (S.D. Tex. May 1, 2025).
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that President Trump's Proclamation is in step with the AEA. The Court therefore turns its attention to the notice that Respondents are currently
providing to those who are subject to the Proclamation, a claim upon which A.S.R. has shown a
likelihood of success on the merits.
ALT

In sum, the Court finds that Respondents must provide to individual detainees who are subject to the AEA and the Proclamation the following notice before removing them pursuant to those provisions of law: (1) twenty-one (21) days' notice and an "opportunity to be heard," (2) notice that clearly articulates the fact that the individual detainee is subject to removal under the Proclamation and the AEA, and (3) notice in English and Spanish, the language of those sought to be expelled, and if needed, Spanish-to-English interpreters shall be provided for any necessary hearings. In the case of A.S.R., if Respondents again designate him as subject to the AEA and the Proclamation, they must provide all of the foregoing notice to his counsel at that time.
The Court recognizes that it may need to conduct further analysis and consider additional issues related to the specifics of notice in the future. However, at this preliminary stage of this
case, the Court finds that the foregoing is appropriate and complies with the law. If either party believes that the Court needs to consider these and related issues in greater detail as this case progresses, the Court invites that party to raise any issue(s) it sees fit to this Court at the appropriate
time and in the appropriate manner.
ALT

Conclusion
As the Court stressed at the beginning of this Opinion, this case implicates significant
issues. In resolving those issues, this Court's unflagging obligation is to apply the law as written.
When the Court does so, it finds that the Proclamation now at issue complies with the AEA, and
the Court further finds that Respondents must provide greater notice to those subject to removal
under the AEA than they are currently providing. Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to
the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals,
to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will.
An appropriate Order follows.
DATED: May 13, 2025
SterhaniotHaines
STEPHAÑIE L. HAINES
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
ALT
May 13, 2025 at 3:07 PM

BREAKING: Federal judge in Pennsylvania, a Trump appointee, finds that Trump's Alien Enemies Act proclamation is properly invoked against a designated "Foreign Terrorist Organization," but that insufficient process is currently being given in the implementation of the AEA proclamation.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-05-13T19:07:49.558Z

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

Follow
Here is the opinion from Judge Stephanie Haines, the first ruling of its kind:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716.72.0_4.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716.72.0_4.pdf

storage.courtlistener.com
May 13, 2025 at 3:10 PM

Here is the opinion from Judge Stephanie Haines, the first ruling of its kind: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-05-13T19:10:07.462Z

[NJCher]

1. very narrow

But that's the nature of a court ruling, as well it should be.

I'd like to see what DOJ submitted to the court to prove that Maduro is directing. I'm not debating that he doesn't, just curious about what was accepted as proof, especially knowing this administration's reputation for veracity. Re this, snipped from above:

Although the Proclamation focuses on TdA's activities in the United States, it places control of those activities in Maduro, acting in his claimed role of President of Venezuela. In other words, the Proclamation declares that the country of Venezuela, through Maduro, directs and controls TdA's activities in the United States ... As a result, the Court concludes that the Proclamation places responsibility for TdA's actions in the United States on the Venezuelan government, which satisfies this aspect of the AEA.

In a cursory look ( I intend to search more when I have a little more time), I find this from Haines' first link (318716):

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716/gov.uscourts.pawd.318716.72.0_4.pdf

on p. 3. It quotes a court ruling and a statement from INTERPOL.