Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a bespectacled, soft-spoken 56-year-old nominated by President Trump, turned his high-backed leather chair toward a government lawyer at the federal courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, and asked a question. Can the president define what counts as an invasion, then declare that an invasion is happening, and then use a 1798 war powers law to expel the so-called invaders?
“Yes,” answered Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer.
Judge Rodriguez followed up: Wouldn’t that make Mr. Trump’s powers under the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, “effectively limitless?”
The question hinted at a groundbreaking ruling that Judge Rodriguez issued on Thursday when he found that Mr. Trump was wrong to claim that the activities of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang in the United States, amounted to an “invasion” that justified invoking the wartime law.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The decision was the most sweeping ruling issued so far by a federal judge blocking the most aggressive prong of Mr. Trump’s effort, one that was already used to deport nearly 140 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador on March 15. It comes after a Supreme Court decision in early April that Venezuelan detainees facing potential deportation under the Alien Enemies Act could file lawsuits in the district courts where they were being held.
Image
Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2017.Credit...C-SPAN
The result of the court’s order has been that challenges to a key piece of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda, which began in Washington, are spreading around the country, filling the dockets of federal judges and drawing tough and skeptical questioning — even from jurists with impeccable conservative credentials.
Judge Rodriguez’s order came after five other judges hearing challenges of detainees related to the Alien Enemies Act issued temporary orders that blocked deportations for some or all of those held in their districts. In Colorado, a judge found that there cannot be an “invasion” without “military and wartime action” and that the administration had “improperly” relied on the words as a legal basis for deportations.
Texas, with its extensive network of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities, is beginning to play an outsize role in the litigation. Judge Rodriguez is one of three Texas judges who have so far heard challenges from groups of Venezuelans. When one of his colleagues, Judge James Wesley Hendrix in the Northern District of Texas, declined to stop the imminent deportation of another group of Venezuelans held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, the Supreme Court stepped in and issued an emergency order blocking it.
In another case, Judge David Briones of the Western District of Texas ordered the immediate release of a Venezuelan couple, rejecting the government’s claims that they were members of Tren de Aragua.
The cases in Texas are also notable because federal courts there are reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the most aggressively conservative appellate court, which has issued a number of rulings supporting hard-line immigration policies.
The possibility of an appeal to the Fifth Circuit has driven the perception that Texas courtrooms might offer Mr. Trump the best chance to win rulings that would allow his administration’s plan to scale up mass deportations to move forward.
That makes the skepticism he is facing there especially notable, said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “The administration might have been overconfident in fighting so hard to have these cases heard in Texas,” he said. “There are some legal questions on which reasonable judges from across the ideological spectrum will disagree. But whether we are under invasion from — or otherwise at war with — Tren de Aragua just isn’t one of them.”
www.nytimes.com
“Yes,” answered Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer.
Judge Rodriguez followed up: Wouldn’t that make Mr. Trump’s powers under the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, “effectively limitless?”
The question hinted at a groundbreaking ruling that Judge Rodriguez issued on Thursday when he found that Mr. Trump was wrong to claim that the activities of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang in the United States, amounted to an “invasion” that justified invoking the wartime law.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The decision was the most sweeping ruling issued so far by a federal judge blocking the most aggressive prong of Mr. Trump’s effort, one that was already used to deport nearly 140 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador on March 15. It comes after a Supreme Court decision in early April that Venezuelan detainees facing potential deportation under the Alien Enemies Act could file lawsuits in the district courts where they were being held.
Image
Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2017.Credit...C-SPAN
The result of the court’s order has been that challenges to a key piece of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda, which began in Washington, are spreading around the country, filling the dockets of federal judges and drawing tough and skeptical questioning — even from jurists with impeccable conservative credentials.
Judge Rodriguez’s order came after five other judges hearing challenges of detainees related to the Alien Enemies Act issued temporary orders that blocked deportations for some or all of those held in their districts. In Colorado, a judge found that there cannot be an “invasion” without “military and wartime action” and that the administration had “improperly” relied on the words as a legal basis for deportations.
Texas, with its extensive network of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities, is beginning to play an outsize role in the litigation. Judge Rodriguez is one of three Texas judges who have so far heard challenges from groups of Venezuelans. When one of his colleagues, Judge James Wesley Hendrix in the Northern District of Texas, declined to stop the imminent deportation of another group of Venezuelans held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, the Supreme Court stepped in and issued an emergency order blocking it.
In another case, Judge David Briones of the Western District of Texas ordered the immediate release of a Venezuelan couple, rejecting the government’s claims that they were members of Tren de Aragua.
The cases in Texas are also notable because federal courts there are reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the most aggressively conservative appellate court, which has issued a number of rulings supporting hard-line immigration policies.
The possibility of an appeal to the Fifth Circuit has driven the perception that Texas courtrooms might offer Mr. Trump the best chance to win rulings that would allow his administration’s plan to scale up mass deportations to move forward.
That makes the skepticism he is facing there especially notable, said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “The administration might have been overconfident in fighting so hard to have these cases heard in Texas,” he said. “There are some legal questions on which reasonable judges from across the ideological spectrum will disagree. But whether we are under invasion from — or otherwise at war with — Tren de Aragua just isn’t one of them.”
In Texas Borderland, Trump’s Immigration Push Suffers Its Worst Legal Defeat Yet
Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is a Trump nominee with conservative credentials. But he found White House claims about a Venezuelan gang “invasion” went too far.
