The federal judge who blocked the Trump administration’s use of a 1798 wartime law to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals canceled a planned Tuesday court hearing to review the case after the Supreme Court handed a win to the president.
In a minute order published Tuesday morning, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg announced that the previously scheduled Tuesday afternoon hearing would be vacated in light of the high court’s ruling, which determined, among other things, that the “appropriate venue for such proceedings is the Southern District of Texas,” or wherever plaintiffs that are subject to potential removal are currently being held.
At issue in the case was Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime immigration law, to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Plaintiffs filed for an emergency restraining order in D.C. District Court last month to temporarily block the administration’s use of the law – a request granted by Boasberg, who agreed that the deportations would likely cause imminent and “irreparable” harm to the affected migrants under the proposed timeline.
A federal appeals court also upheld that ruling, which put Boasberg squarely in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. The lower court’s restraining order remained in effect until Monday night, when the Supreme Court sided with Trump in an emergency order. Since its passage in Congress 228 years ago, the Alien Enemies Act had been used just three times: during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.
Boasberg had been tasked with reviewing the Trump administration’s use of the law to deport Venezuelan nationals. The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling established due process protections and the right to judicial review for migrants subject to deportation under the law.
Justices said in particular that migrants have the right to appear in court before they are deported, and must receive proper notice of any planned removal proceedings from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act. Detainees “must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act,” justices wrote in the majority. “The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
Boasberg also ordered plaintiffs in the case to file a notice by April 16 indicating whether they believe that they still have a basis to proceed on their motion for preliminary injunction in the D.C. court, rather than the Southern District of Texas, where migrants are being held.
If so, he said, they must propose a briefing schedule, so the case can be reviewed in the D.C. court.
