In a striking courtroom exchange, Judge Patricia Millett of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit stated that the treatment of Venezuelan migrants deported under the Trump administration could be considered worse than that of Nazis during World War II. The judge’s comments arose during a two-hour hearing that scrutinized the government’s controversial use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport 238 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to a mega-prison in El Salvador.
This statement echoes the growing concerns over the legality and fairness of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, particularly following ex-President Donald Trump’s proclamations on March 15. He claimed these Venezuelan nationals posed a significant threat to national security and were involved in “irregular warfare” against the United States. However, this justification has faced significant pushback in federal court, notably from Judge James Boasberg, who has emphasized that many deported individuals dispute their gang affiliations and must be afforded the opportunity to contest their removal.
Despite the administration’s assertions that these individuals were “carefully vetted” as gang members, many families of the deported have argued otherwise, with some having no prior criminal history in the US. The implications of using the Alien Enemies Act—a law intended for wartime considerations—have reignited debates over human rights and procedural due process in immigration enforcement. Critics, including human rights groups, argue that such deportations are illegal since the US is not at war with Venezuela.
The legal tussle intensified on Monday when Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order preventing the deportations, stating that it was crucial for the court to first evaluate the merits of the migrants’ claims against their deportation. Judge Millett’s remarks during the hearing hinted at a deeper concern regarding the potential for abuse in the application of presidential powers, asserting that citizens could be wrongly deported without proper recourse for appeal.
As the Trump administration attempts to justify its actions, with Attorney General Pam Bondi remarking that it is a form of “modern-day warfare,” the contentious dialogue surrounding these deportations continues to develop—underscoring the friction between executive power and judicial oversight. The three-judge panel, comprising judges with differing views on the administration’s move, has yet to announce when it will rule on the contentious issue.
The national debate over immigration will unquestionably continue to evolve as both supporters and critics of Trump’s policies engage in a battle of narratives, with implications for future immigration enforcement and human rights protections under US law.