A federal judge didn’t mince words during a fiery courtroom exchange that underscored the chaos and secrecy surrounding a controversial Trump-era deportation strategy: “Nazis got better treatment,” she declared.
At the heart of the legal showdown is a centuries-old law—the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—revived by the Trump administration to expel Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliations without due process. But as the legal dust settles, a panel of judges is grappling with whether constitutional protections were trampled in the name of national security.
During Monday’s hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Patricia Millett grilled government attorneys, raising a stark historical comparison. She questioned whether even accused Nazis during World War II had more opportunity to contest their removal than these migrants—some of whom, according to their families, were wrongly branded as members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
The administration insists it acted within legal bounds and invoked the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, previously wielded to intern Japanese, German, and Italian immigrants during World War II. Government lawyers now want the court to lift a temporary block on deportations issued by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, arguing that national security concerns are being undermined by judicial overreach.
But those swept up in the operation tell a different story.
One deportee, a Venezuelan soccer coach, was flagged due to a crown tattoo—a tribute to his favorite team, Real Madrid, not a gang. He’s now detained in El Salvador, alongside more than 200 others flown out on March 15 in a hurried operation. Critics say the administration “hustled” people onto planes in a rush to sidestep Boasberg’s order.
And the details grow murkier. Eight Venezuelan women and a Nicaraguan man were sent to El Salvador, only to be rejected and flown back. One woman said she overheard a U.S. official onboard referencing an order that should’ve grounded the flight.
The court is now being asked not just to weigh constitutional questions, but to decide whether the administration violated a judge’s order in real time—and if those deported in potential violation should be returned.
Judge Justin Walker, appointed by Trump, appeared sympathetic to the government’s argument that executive authority in foreign affairs should not be second-guessed. But the broader panel is divided.
The case has become a lightning rod in the growing tension between executive power and judicial oversight. After Boasberg’s initial ruling, Trump lashed out, calling for his impeachment—a call so unorthodox it drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who defended judicial independence.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has remained silent, letting the court battles play out even as Venezuelans remain detained abroad.
At stake isn’t just the fate of those already deported, but the limits of presidential power and whether centuries-old wartime laws can be wielded as blunt instruments in modern-day immigration crackdowns.
