BREAKING: Appeals court upholds Boasberg’s deportation block, ignores intent of Alien Enemies Act

Politics
1

.

See: Appeals court won’t lift Boasberg’s order blocking Alien Enemies Act

03/26/25 4:18 PM ET

What Judge Karen Henderson ignores is the actual legislative intent of the Alien Enemies Act expressed during its creation, and gives context to its text, e.g.,
see H. of R., Alien Enemies, May, 22nd, 1798

“Mr. O. believed, therefore, that it would be best to vest a discretionally power in the Executive to secure and take care that these men should do no injury. And this could not be looked upon as a dangerous or exorbitant power, since the President would have the power, the moment war was declared, to apprehend the whole of these people as enemies, and make them prisoners of war. And in case of a predatory incursion, made on this country, there might be as much reason for securing some of them as in case of actual war or invasion.”

Also see:

ALIENS.

"Mr. Sewall said, the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and Defence of the Country, to whom it was referred to inquire into what measures would be proper to be taken respecting aliens, were of opinion their instructions did not go to a sufficient extent, and directed him to propose to the House the following resolution for adoption:

“ Resolved, That the committee on that part of the President’s Speech which relates to commerce and the defence of the country, be authorized to consider the danger which may result by means of aliens and other disaffected or seditious persons residing within the United States, and what measures ought to be taken for securing, removing, or otherwise restricting such persons, and to report by bill or otherwise.” SOURCE House of Representative, May, 16th,1798.
.

Let us keep in mind that our very own Supreme Court has emphatically stated “The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

See Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903),

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”

Our Supreme Court has also instructed that:

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

So, as it turns out, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson has attached her own meaning to Alien Enemies Act, and it conflicts with the actual legislative intent for which it was adopted.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

.

2

03/26/2025 6:27 PM EST

johnwk posts wall of text no one will completely read.

10 Likes
3

What Johnwk fails to understand is Judge Boasberg’s order did not state that the Trump Administration could not apprehend and detain people it considered alien enemies, only that if it was going to deport them or ship them off to a third party country prison, there needed to be a hearing first.

The two judges today pretty much said the same thing.

What I find amusing in all this is if Homan is so sure they have the goods on the people he wants to send to El Salvador (or their home countries) he should have no problem providing the evidence.

Yet he and the Trump Administration don’t seem to want to, and the question is…why not if their information is slam dunk?

3 Likes
4

I’m probably one of the few in this forum who has actually read Judge Boasberg’s 37 page opinion against Trump’s deportations In which he bases his opinion on theory and not actual law.

Aside from that See: Anti-Trump Judge Makes Another Outrageous Ruling which deals with Boasberg’s opinion.

5

You know the answer to that. They don’t have it. Just like when they had no way to return children when they separated them from their parents during Trump’s first term.

6

The highest priority for lib losers is once again siding with America’s enemies. :rofl:

9 Likes
7

Quite consistent.

I don’t think it will stop the effort.

4 Likes
8

I don’t know about libs, but my highest priority is making sure that people that don’t deserve to get sent to a prison in El Salvador don’t get sent there.

Because I still believe in the maxim that until recently most Americans believed in… That are 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person get incarcerated.

1 Like
9

Look at them snarl and snap over the fact that they only ever side against America. :rofl:

4 Likes
10

Those guilty people you say ought to go free have engaged in murder, rape, assault, theft, and other crimes committed against American citizens.

11

Doesn’t appear to be slowing team Trump down.

:rofl:

4 Likes
12

3 Likes
13

Trump should ignore the idiot and continue to deport as fast as possible. Regardless of what he does, should Democrats take the house back in 26 they will falsely impeach him again, that’s a certainty. There is no way the Senate would remove him from office and President Vance will pardon him on Jan. 20th, 2029 to keep the vindictive TDS infected Democrats from harassing Trump until the day he dies.

Right now, Trump is actually doing what the vast majority of Americans voted him in for last November, you know Libs, he’s upholding the DEMOCRACY you guys kept screeching he was going to destroy if he was elected.

Republicans and Conservatives knew you that Libs were literally going to support nothing Trump does and would go on with the lawfare and use the courts to obstruct Trump and the expressed will of the majority of Americans, IOW- doubling down on the same stupid that cost you the election, especially if America is weakened and Americans get killed by your actions. TDS is as an awful disease, it destroys common sense and the ability to learn from your mistakes. So we know you’ll do your part to help Republicans win more house seats in an off year election and probably a few more Senate seats too!

You have nothing to lose Mr. President. Keep getting these animals off ours streets and out of our country. We want them gone!

4 Likes
14

I could go either way on this.

  1. I would love to see a streamlines system for deporting illegal aliens, but unless/until one exists the executive branch has to use the one we got. (Liberal Judges - 1, Trump - 0)

  2. But, our laws were written by smart people who were good at Englishing. Therefore what the laws says, on its face is sufficient (99% of the time.) On its face the Alien Enemies Act gives the president the power to do this. the -ONLY- way to block it is to declare in effect
    “The people who wrote that law were semi-literate morons incapable of writing what they meant. We must therefore divine what their actual intent was, and pretend they wrote whatever our imaginations tell us they intended.”

That second one is absolutely Orwellian, and no court should ever have that much power. (New Score : Liberal Judges - 1, Trump - 1)

1 Like
15

Freedom is dangerous.

Americans used to understand this.

You want those gangsters off the street?

Do it right.

“Kill them all…let God sort them out” is not the right way, even if it makes you feel good.

16

You may be conflating two questions.
Question 1:
Should Donald Trump be pursuing this course of action. (A political question to be decided at the ballot box.)

Question 2:
Can judges strike down anything and everything the President does simply because they don’t like it? IOW Does the Constitution give judges unlimited power to strike down anything and anything simply because it came form the other party?

1 Like
17

That’s why locks are put on our entry door, and those who break in could lawfully be shot, and should be shot in most cases.

18

incapable of writing what they meant.

And they actually wrote . . . "or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States . . . "

The very purpose of the Act was intended to provide the President with emergency authority to deal with foreign actors who would do us harm.

1 Like
19

The only times the Act has ever been invoked, it has led to odious abuses of power and curtailment of civil rights (well for sure during WW I and WW II).

These laws themselves have long been considered some of the worst laws ever made by the US.

So it is totally on brand for Trump supporters to like them.

2 Likes
20

“I can name one or two times it was abused” ≠ Every time in the past.

“I can name one or two times it was abused” ≠ This time.

The law is very short (4 paragraphs) and very easy to read 8-12th grade level)
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter3&edition=prelim

§21. Restraint, regulation, and removal
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any 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. The President is authorized . . .

§23. Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges
After any such proclamation has been made, the several courts of the United States, having criminal jurisdiction, and the several justices and judges of the courts of the United States, are authorized and it shall be their duty, upon complaint against any alien enemy resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President may have established, to cause such alien to be duly apprehended and conveyed before such court, judge, or justice; and after a full examination and hearing . . .

The President has the authority to do this, but he must bring each defendant to a court for a (brief) hearing. so two different branches of government have to sign-off on every case, every deportation

If your news sources are not telling you this, they are probably feeding you one-sided anti-Trump half-truths and calling it “news.”
If your news sources are not telling you this, they are probably feeding you one-sided anti-Trump half-truths and calling it “news.”

1 Like