Judge Compares Treatment of Deportees to Nazi Cases in Trump Administration Controversy

A U.S. appeals court judge made a striking comparison on Monday, asserting that Nazis received better treatment than Venezuelan nationals deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration. This remark emerged during a crucial hearing regarding President Donald Trump’s invocation of an 18th-century wartime authority aimed at removing specific foreigners from U.S. soil.

The discussion took place as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit considered arguments from the Trump administration, which sought to overturn a lower court ruling. This ruling temporarily blocked the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan nationals, including individuals suspected of involvement with the notorious Tren de Aragua gang.

Judge Millett Questions Deportation Procedures

Judge Patricia Millett rigorously questioned Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign regarding the deportation timelines. The Trump administration’s actions resulted in the quick removal of at least 261 migrants, inclusive of more than 100 Venezuelan expatriates, who faced removal based solely on the controversial law currently disputed in the courts.

Millett highlighted the chaotic nature of the deportations, stating, “The point here was that there were planeloads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify people.” Her remarks indicated a deep concern over the process followed by the administration.

Nazis Received More Consideration Than Deportees

In a particularly provocative statement during the hearing, Judge Millett remarked, “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act than has happened here.” She elaborated on her point, noting that those facing deportation before World War II had the opportunity to appear before hearing boards prior to removal.

The judge pressed Ensign on whether the Venezuelans deported had an opportunity to seek relief or contest their gang membership status through a habeas petition before their expulsion. This line of questioning underscored critical concerns about due process for the individuals involved.

Government’s Position Remains Unclear

The government’s stance appeared ambiguous during the proceedings. Although Ensign challenged Judge Millett’s comparison to Nazi deportations, specific details regarding what legal recourse the deportees could pursue remained lacking.

The Alien Enemies Act, enacted by Congress in 1798, has a sparse history of application, with its most notable use occurring during World War II. The act allows the government to detain and remove non-citizens deemed enemy aliens during times of conflict.

Awaiting the Court’s Decision

As the courtroom proceedings progressed, observers noted the tension surrounding the government’s approach to immigration enforcement during a politically charged period. The appeals court, however, has not indicated when it plans to issue its ruling on this significant matter.

With the stakes high for many individuals facing deportation, advocates and legal experts await clarity on the situation. They are particularly focused on the implications for Venezuelan nationals and others who find themselves under scrutiny in the current immigration landscape.

This unfolding story continues to grab attention, raising critical discussions about the balance between national security and the fundamental rights of individuals facing deportation.

This is an ongoing news story. Stay tuned for updates.