A prominent immigration attorney tore into the rationale from a Trump-appointed judge who on Tuesday became the first jurist to explicitly endorse President Donald Trump's plan to remove Venezuelans accused of being affiliated with the Tren de Aragua cartel based on a 1798 law intended to suppress military invasions.
Judge Stephanie Haines' reasoning was shallow and flimsy, argued American Immigration Center attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick in a lengthy thread on X deconstructing the ruling. To begin with, Reichlin-Melnick noted, even Haines' ruling, which contradicts the opinion of several other judges finding the act doesn't apply in this situation, had some limits.
For instance, she held that Trump must provide three weeks of notice for migrants to challenge their deportation, rather than immediately being whisked onto a jet as Trump wanted to do. And she also rejected the Trump administration's claim that merely migrating to the United States unlawfully is a "predatory incursion" as defined by the law.
EXCLUSIVE: Breastfeeding mom of US citizen sues Kristi Noem after being grabbed by ICE
However, he continued, she otherwise found in Trump's favor, under logic that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
"I find Judge Haines' reasoning weak," wrote Reichlin-Melnick. "She doesn't discuss the AEA's history (the Quasi-War), rejects a 'military' requirement on textualism, cites to use of 'incursion' in the modern era to refer to terrorist attacks" — thus, under her logic, because Trump designated Tren de Aragua a "Foreign Terrorist Organization," it applies to people accused of being members of it.
"Even accepting her definition of 'predatory incursion' as encompassing internal terrorist acts like mass shootings, I find her holding on the factual basis for the proclamation to be exceptionally weak," he continued. "Drug smuggling, even with nefarious intent, is not like a terrorist attack!"
"Judge Haines gives 7 citations to the use of the word 'incursion' to justify the AEA's 'predatory incursion' language covering terrorist acts," Reichlin-Melnick continued. "But: 3 refer to territorial incursions; 3 refer to armed attacks; 1 is a metaphor for propaganda. Drug smuggling... doesn't fit in those."
For now, Haines' decision only applies within western Pennsylvania, and it will likely be appealed and then blocked by the Third Circuit. But, Reichlin-Melnick concluded, "this further pressures the Supreme Court to act soon — potentially before the end of the term."