Fernando Rodriguez Jr.

It can be traced back to the 1780s.

Rodriguez conducted his own research: he published an appendix to historical fact-findings, associated with dozens of typical examples involving George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Madison and others around 1798, at the same time, George Washington, George Washington, George Washington, and others used “invasion” and “predatory invasion” in their correspondence.

Rodriguez concluded: "Historical records clearly show that the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemy Act violates the mundane, ordinary meaning of the provisions of the regulations."

Rodriguez, who was appointed as the bench by President Trump in 2018, is one of a handful of federal judges, recently reviewing the decades in U.S. history that defines the cause of invasion. In the process, some rejected one of the key legal arguments for the Trump administration to use wartime deportation mandates.

In recent years, the term “invasion” has been used to describe illegal immigration that has shifted from the margins to the mainstream of Republican politics. But so far, the framework has not been fully tested in court.

The White House issued an announcement in March that the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua has designated a foreign terrorist organization who “engaged irregular wars and hostilities against the United States” and believes that the gang is “closely related to the Venezuelan government.”

"The result is a mixed crime state that is invading and predatory invasion of the United States and poses a significant danger," the announcement said.

According to a recently declassified memorandum, the U.S. intelligence community does not jointly consider control of the Venezuelan government, and even has direct contact with Tren de Aragua. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that although some members of the Venezuelan regime could tolerate or work with Tren de Aragua, there was no evidence of organized cooperation.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration used the presidential announcement to quickly expel more than 130 members of Tren de Aragua to the El Salvador prison, citing the Alien Enemy Act. These deportations are now at the heart of the legal battle against Trump’s immigration crackdown and his efforts to limit immigration due process.

Immigration advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have challenged the deportation, saying the Trump administration has little evidence that Venezuelans are gang members and that these people have the right to file the charges in court.

Furthermore, the ACLU believes that the Trump administration simply cannot use the wartime powers set out in the Alien Enemy Act because it aims to resist military invasions and invasions rather than responding to illegal immigration or criminal gangs. Some judges have taken a similar view.

Rodriguez wrote in his order on May 1: “The simple, ordinary meaning of ‘invasion’ is a type of entry into the state’s territory by a military force or organized armed force.”

Rodriguez's ruling marks the first time a federal judge has made a final decision on the Trump administration's use of the law, although it only applies to the southern Texas area. Federal judges in Colorado and southern New York have issued similar decisions, ratifying preliminary injunctions in their respective regions.

However, not all judges reached the same conclusion. In Pennsylvania, federal judge Stephanie Haines ruled this week that the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemy Act to expel so-called gang members, as long as it gives them at least 21 days to file a lawsuit in court.

Judge Haynes also reviewed the historical records. She rejected the Trump administration’s definition of invasion and predatory invasion, finding that “single immigrants” are not enough to invoke the Alien Enemy Act. However, President Trump's appointment in 2019 ruled that "hostile entry" by foreign terrorist groups such as Tren de Aragua should be counted as a predatory invasion in the law.

"This definition is faithful to significance The "Prevent Invasion" of 1798 Apply In view of “changes in the world,” Haynes wrote in her opinion.

Her ruling so far is an outlier. Most judges who have examined history have ruled against the Trump administration.

In March, Judge Karen Henderson of the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karen Henderson wrote: "The term 'invasion' is well known for the fifth Congress and the public public incident in the United States." "This sentence echoes the entire Constitution that the people approved nine years ago throughout the Constitution. In each instancethis is used in a military sense.

In court documents, the Justice Department lawyer argued that Tren de Aragua army entries, the term is widely accepted for a broader definition. ”

But Henderson was appointed to the Court of Appeal by President George HW Bush and was not convinced. “The words and their original meanings are different,” she wrote.

The Supreme Court allows the White House to continue to expel Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act, and conditions are available. But the High Court has not yet said on a larger issue whether Tren de Aragua constitutes a "invasion" or a military attack as stipulated by law.

When the United States officially declared the war, the Alien Enemy Act was previously called only three times in American history.

"I really regard alien enemy law as the power of war, only when the war is declared," said historian Terri Halperin. The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798: Testing the Constitution.

In 1798, when the Alien Enemy Act was signed into law, the undeclared naval war between the United States and France was in trouble. At the time, Congress had only met for a few months of the year, Harperlin said, and lawmakers were concerned that the executive might need to respond quickly to a military strike on U.S. territory.

“Congress cannot act quickly to declare war,” Harperlin said. “So by including 'invasion' or 'invasion' in the law, it is a way to work around a long-term recession of Congress.”

The Trump administration argues that the Foreign Enemy Act aims to give executive powers within the scope of its department.

"The founding generation wrote this law very clearly - these are the people who wrote the Constitution - apparently want to ensure that the president has the broadest power to evacuate foreign enemy forces from the state's non-citizens," said Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff of the White House. "That's the president acting at the absolute highest point of his constitutional authority."

But historians say the article overlooks some key context.

The Foreign Enemy Act is the only surviving statute in the only set of laws known as the Foreigners and Sedition Act. Historian Harperlin said the law was extremely controversial at the time because young countries were still debating the power of the presidency, and the significance of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

"This was not resolved in the 1790s," Harperlin said. "They tried to figure this out in a world where they were not quite sure that their independence as a country was guaranteed or secure."

Another of these laws, known as the Foreign Friends Act, does grant the president the power to detain and expel aliens he believes are “dangerous to peace and security in the United States”, even if the war is not declared.

But this didn't last long. James Madison and other founders have been widely criticized by the Alien Friends Act for depriving immigrants of due process and fair trials, and the new Congress allowed it to pass only two years after it was allowed.

Judge Henderson wrote that the Foreign Friends Act was "made by narrow profits, widely ridiculed as unconstitutional, and allowed once the federalists were swept by the regime in the 1800 election."

To some, the White House seems to be confusing the two laws.

"In my opinion, the Trump administration is using alien enemy laws like the Alien Enemies Act," Harperlin said. The Alien Enemies Act is the smaller controversy among the two, successfully reaching the 21st century. Now, the Trump administration is trying to restore the law, but is finding increasingly skeptical judiciary in its way.

"The real theme is that invasion is a military matter, and it is not one of the immigrants," Henderson wrote.