What was the United States Court ruled in the deportation of Treen de Aragua? | Narcotics news

Federal Appeal Court Ruling On September 2, the Trump administration cannot use the eighteenth century law to quickly deport suspected gang members.

Its decision depends largely on the administration’s assertion that the gang based on Venezuela Arajwa train king Invade US.

The ruling said: “By applying our commitment to the interpretation of (the law of foreign enemies), we conclude that the results do not support that the invasion or predatory incursion has occurred.”

The decision of the Court of Appeal in the Fifth Chamber 2-1 effectively prohibits the government to use the rapid path of the foreign enemies law in 1798 to deport the persons who say it belongs to the gang. Such an invasion or incursion is a necessary condition for the United States to deport people who use the law.

Here are five things that must be known about the law of foreign enemies, the court ruling and what can come after that:

How did the Trump administration use the law before the ruling?

On March 15, President Donald Trump protested Foreign enemies lawAnd, which allows the president to detain and deport people from a “hostile nation or government” without a session when the United States is either in war with this country or that the country “committed or attempted” an invasion or a raid called “predatory penetration” against the United States.

On the same day, the Trump administration was deported More than 230 Venezuelan men To the Terrorism Cabinet Center, or CECOT, the maximum Al -Salvador prison. The investigation conducted by the ProPublica and other news organizations found that the vast majority of men had no criminal records. None of the men’s names appeared in the list of alleged gangs members held by Venezuelan law enforcement and the International Law Enforcement Agency.

In July, as part of a Prisoners exchange Between the United States and Venezuela, men who were deported from the United States were returned and held at Cecot to Venezuela.

Many legal challenges were followed by Trump’s summons to the law. But the court of Appeal on September 2 was the first to deal with whether Trump had called for a law.

What did the Court of Appeal say about the invasion?

The court said that Treen de Aragoa had not invaded or carried out a predatory penetration against the United States.

The Court of Appeal did not agree to Trump’s assertion in March that “the evidence irreversibly shows that (Treen de Aragua) has invaded the United States.” To determine whether Tren De Aragua had invaded or carried out a predatory penetration, the court had to define the meaning of each of these conditions.

The ruling said: “We define an invasion for the purposes of (the law of foreign enemies) as a war that involves entering this country by a military force or at least directed by a state or another nation, with the intention of hostile.”

As for the predatory incursion, the court said the term “describing the armed forces of size and cohesion, engaging in something less than the invasion, whose goals can vary widely, and are directed by a foreign government or a nation.”

The court ruled that a state “encourages its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally, is not equivalent in the modern era to send an armed and organized force to occupy, disrupt it or harm the United States.”

The court said that the collective migration of Venezuelan immigrants had not been an armed force or organization.

Was any part of the ruling favorable to the Trump administration?

The court said it does not have the power to judge the accuracy of the information provided by the Trump administration about the extent of Trine de Aragoa’s association with the Venezuelan government led by President Nicolas Maduro.

However, the court ruled that the Trine de Aragoa could be considered a government or a nation for the purposes of the law, assuming that Trump’s assertion is correct that the group is led by the Venezuelan government.

However, the court ruled, there is no invasion.

Trump’s assertion of the Maduro administration Links to Tren De Aragua It contradicted the assessment of the intelligence community.

The National Intelligence Council said in the April report.

In May, the Director of National Intelligence, Toulcy Gabbard, launched officials of the National Intelligence Council who wrote the evaluation, according to the Washington Post.

What did the court say about due legal procedures?

The Court of Appeal said, based on the available information, an updated operation that the government uses to inform the persons who will be deported under the law, and it appears that it follows the requirements of legal procedures. However, she asked the lower federal court to judge what is the government’s adequate notification.

In May, before the government updated its notification process, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration had not granted immigrants who said it would deport it under foreign enemies sufficiently to exercise their rights to due legal procedures.

At that time, the government gave migrants about 24 hours notice that they would be deported without information on how to compete for deportation. The Supreme Court asked the Court of Appeal to determine the amount of the government’s necessary notice to support the rights of the constitutional procedures for migrants.

While the Court of Appeal decided the case, the Trump administration has updated the document it gives to migrants as a notice that they will be deported under the law. Part of the change included giving migrants seven days to challenge the deportation.

What will happen probably after that?

The decision of the Court of Appeal stops the law of foreign enemies in the three states in its judicial jurisdiction: Louisiana, Mississippi. Other courts can use the ruling in their decisions.

The Trump administration can appeal the court of the Court of Appeal either to the full court of appeal or to the US Supreme Court. The White House did not specify whether it would appeal or any court.

“The authority of the National Security Operations Administration in defense of the United States and the removal of terrorists from the United States is only with the president,” said White House spokesman. “We expect that they will be justified on one foundation in this case.”