Tag: donald-trump

Federal Policing in the Era of a Rogue President

Note: I originally posted this essay on my Substack newsletter Bumpass Warbler. Given the continued use of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to conduct criminal investigations of individuals named by the White House this essay is worth reposting. This week DHS and DOJ confirmed that they have undertaken multiple criminal investigations against Christopher Krebs, who was named in an earlier Trump executive order. The have crossed a line. Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi have become Trump’s henchmen, and the FBI and DHS the modern equivalent to Stalin’s NKVD. This is not an exercise in hyperbole, their actions constitute the first steps down a slippery slope to a police state. End Note.

Over three decades in law enforcement I saw how policing at the local, state, and federal levels changed, some of it not for the better.  Today, American law enforcement sits at an inflection point, our guiding North Star under attack.  It is not under siege from al-Qaida, or the Islamic State, or criminal gangs like MS-13, it is under threat from within, from a rogue president.  

Our constitutional system of separation of powers and the rule of law is degraded daily, like habitat loss in the Amazon Rain Forest, as the White House continues its relentless bulldozing of norms.  Habitat loss is notoriously difficult if not impossible to restore fully.  Judges are maligned and threatened with impeachment, court orders disobeyed, violations of due process encouraged, speech of foreign students criminalized, constant Habeas Corpus hide and seek games, criminal investigations ordered by the White House, law firm shake downs, arrests and detentions of migrants and valid visa holder without probable cause, harassment of persons of middle eastern origin at points of entry into the United States.  That’s just a sample. 

While we think of constitutional crises as being played out in iconic court battles and Supreme Court hearings, the men and women in law enforcement, in particular federal agents, find themselves in the middle of this chaos every day, just trying to do their jobs.  Trump and his appointees wanting scalps and press events on one side, and their conscience and oaths to defend and protect the Constitution on the other side.  This is where the real battle is being waged for the heart and soul of federal law enforcement.  In stark terms, are we teetering toward a federal police state?

We’re supposed to be on the side of democracy and the rule of law, were that thin blue line dividing law and constitutional order from chaos…and autocracy.  That blue line is not some random color but is deeply symbolic as to the purpose and place of policing in a civil society. We don’t always get it right, and many times the police and federal agents were on the wrong side of history, but the aspiration, the idea was there. 

When deciding on a uniform design for London’s newly established Metropolitan Police Department Robert Peel chose blue.  The army wore red he reasoned, and not wanting the police to think of themselves as an army, and Londoners not see the police as military occupiers, he wisely decided on blue uniforms.

America followed this path in the 1850s when metropolitan police departments began to outfit their officers in uniforms, starting with the NYPD.   Blue was the universal color chosen.  Today we accept uniformed officers, but in the mid 19th century, police uniforms were controversial, hotly debated, as was arming them.  Perhaps a legacy of America’s long-standing antipathy to standing armies. Before guns, wooden clubs were the issued weapon along with a leather badge.  For those that like the historical trivia of things, longer clubs were for night shifts, hence the night stick, shorter clubs were for day shifts. 

As the 19th century progressed, so did the size, power, and responsibilities of urban police departments.  Federal law enforcement as we know it today practically non-existent.  Police precinct buildings became overnight shelters for the homeless, soup kitchens for the hungry.  Police departments conducted inspections on building boilers and were sanitation inspectors for urban slaughterhouses as well.  

From the mid-19th century, police officers who died in the line of duty increasingly began to be afforded military style funerals. Conspicuous spectacles meant to send a message to the policed, and to the police officer on the beat. Today’s police funerals were 19th century inventions.

In time, near the end of the 19th century, the police were transformed into ‘guardians,’ an acknowledgement of their powerful roll in party politics and political patronage, but also in response to white middle-class urban denizens who demanded heavy handed policing to assuage their fears of crime, disease, and immorality attributed to increasing numbers of foreign migrants.  

The 20th century brought police reforms and a growth in the size and number of federal law enforcement agencies.  Paramilitary state police organizations were founded. Policing became more professionalized, union and advocacy groups matured. In the 1980s high-capacity pistols replaced six shot revolvers….and the number of average number of bullets being fired in a shooting went from 6 to dozens.  

9/11 changed America and policing. Many police departments started looking like military units as military surplus gear was handed out like candy.  Tactical uniforms once reserved for special teams, became the rage.  Military style body armor, tactical gear adorned police officers like Christmas tree ornaments, long guns slung from bodies, armored vehicles patrolled streets.  With military style uniforms and gear the mindset changed, I observed.  This change also seeped into federal law enforcement agencies as well.  Robert Peel was right.

As we witnessed recently, federal agents in Homeland Security rounded up and deported over 200 hundred alleged Venezuelan gang members using a late 18th century Act meant to be invoked in case of war.  The men’s due process rights were ignored, they were swiftly deported to a foreign prison despite a federal court order to stop.  The agents knowingly, and apparently willfully, ignored the constitutional right’s of these men, on the orders of one man: Donald Trump. In effect, acting like Trump’s personal army at war.  

It’s not just about Homeland Security or FBI agents; it’s about federal law enforcement in general.  When folks think about federal law enforcement, the FBI comes to mind (mostly because of their PR machine and TV and movie brand), but every federal department has its own law enforcement agency.  About two dozen in all.  They conduct criminal investigation specific to their department’s statutory functions.  For instance, Medicaid fraud for HHS and tax fraud for the IRS or Visa Fraud for the State Department.  They too will eventually (if not already) be tasked to conduct politically driven criminal investigations to punish and discipline Trump’s political opponents.  

To my fellow officers and agents, you must decide whether you will obey illegal orders given by a president you may like and voted for.  Should you obey his illegal orders now, what happens when a new president you don’t like makes similar illegal demands targeting his or her alleged enemies? That’s why we have the rule of law, not men or women. You must decide when and how you will say ‘enough’ to being muscle for party politicians in high places.  It’s not our damn job to be a president’s lawless private army.  

When you are asked to draw up arrest lists and swear to arrest warrants using demonstrably false statements because a president told you to — not because they committed any crimes — you’re no longer officers of the law.  In fact, as you know, you open yourself up to Bivens lawsuits.   Financial ruin, bankruptcy, just like the pillow guy.  We are supposed to be a bulwark against injustice, not its facilitator.  Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a police state.

Finally, let Jan 6 should be a warning to all.  Trump organized, fired up, and sent a mob to the Capitol building.  You know, not many people bring a noose to a rally unless it’s a lynch mob.  They attacked our fellow federal officers.  Scores were injured, crushed, beaten, one tased into cardiac arrest.  One officer died that evening; several took their lives shortly afterward.  Then Trump, in one of his first acts of his second term, pardoned everyone convicted of assaulting and brutalizing our brothers and sisters.  His actions speak loudly.  He isn’t pro-police; he sees you and I as pawns, and like any chess player will sacrifice them for the King.  

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of April 18, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

Are we there yet? Have we arrived at a constitutional crisis?

This week’s actions and reporting primarily focused on two stories. The first centers on the court actions surrounding the illegal deportation of Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Mr. Garcia is legally permitted to remain the the U.S. but was nonetheless wrongly detained and deported to the El Salvadoran super max prison.  The U.S. Supreme Court directed the administration to ‘facilitate’ his return.  ‘Facilitate’ is a pretty poor choice.  What does making it easier even mean in the context of a court order? It’s like facilitating your child to eat broccoli.

Nevertheless. after the Supreme Court’s ruling, government lawyers balked on providing a lower court judges request for information on the government’s plans to return Garcia and his status. The following day or so, during a visit by the El Salvadoran President Bukele to the White House on April 24, Bukele stated he won’t return the Garcia. This all played out before TV cameras during a press event with Buckle. Trump directed a reporter’s question regarding Garcia and the Supreme Court ruling to Attorney General Bondi, who said was it was up to the El Salvadorian President. Taking his cue, Buckle said he didn’t have the power to release Garcia. Sitting to his left was Trump, who smirked like the woman in the Mona Lisa. I was shocked, shocked, given that Buckle was dressed worse than Zelenskyy, he would have been badgered, attacked, and humiliated.

Given the governments failure to adhere to instructions, the judge stated that there is “probable cause” that the government is in criminal contempt of the court. That is serious. Here is the thing however. Should the judge impose a penalty, for instance sending someone to jail, the US Marshal Service would be the ones making the arrest. The Marshals work for the Department of Justice and the Attorney General. Basically, the courts can’t really enforce their rulings. It needs the Executive Department in general, and in particular the Department of Justice regarding criminal matters, to enforce the rulings.

That is the crux of a constitutional crisis we now faces. James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers that the Constitution was a parchment barrier, highlighting is takes acts of good faith for the constitution to survive. If the President and Executive Department does not act in good faith, then the barrier is broken.

The second issue is the battle between Harvard and Trump and his administration regarding funding pauses to the university and a list of demands in how the university operates. The good news is that Harvard pushed back at Trump. This is a pivot point. Below is a copy of the letter. The government now claims the letter was sent in error. Hmmm.

Dr. Alan M. Garber President
Harvard University Office of the President Massachusetts Hall Cambridge, MA 02138

Penny Pritzker
Lead Member, Harvard Corporation Harvard Corporation
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138

Dear Dr. Garber:

April 11, 2025

The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are antithetical to ideological capture.

Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise. We therefore present the below provisions as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government.

If acceptable to Harvard, this document will constitute an agreement in principle, which the parties will work in good faith to translate into a more thorough, binding settlement agreement. As you will see, this letter incorporates and supersedes the terms of the federal government’s prior letter of April 3, 2025.

● Governance and leadership reforms. By August 2025, Harvard must make meaningful governance reform and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this letter, including: fostering clear lines of authority and accountability; empowering tenured professors and senior leadership, and, from among the tenured professoriate and senior leadership, exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University and committed to the changes indicated in this letter; reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty; reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship; and reducing forms of

governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization that interfere with the possibility of the reforms indicated in this letter.

  • ●  Merit-Based Hiring Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among faculty, staff, and leadership. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All existing and prospective faculty shall be reviewed for plagiarism and Harvard’s plagiarism policy consistently enforced. All hiring and related data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.
  • ●  Merit-Based Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government—and non-individualized, statistical information regarding admissions shall be made available to the public, including information about rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, national origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests—during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028. During this same period, the dean of admissions for each program or school must sign a public statement after each admissions cycle certifying that these rules have been upheld.
  • ●  International Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism. Harvard will immediately report to federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, any foreign student, including those on visas and with green cards, who commits a conduct violation. As above, these reforms must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes; comprehensive throughout all of Harvard’s programs; and, during the reform period, shared with the federal government for audit, shared on a non-individualized basis with the public, and certified by deans of admissions.
  • ●  Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and

the federal government no later than the end of 2025. Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to establish viewpoint diversity every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.

● Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.

o The programs, schools, and centers of concern include but are not limited to the Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic.

o The report of the external party shall include information as to individual faculty members who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to violate Harvard’s rules following October 7, and the University and federal government will cooperate to determine appropriate sanctions for those faculty members within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment.

o The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025 and reforms undertaken to repair the problems. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to make repairs every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.

● Discontinuation of DEI. The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government; and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the federal government that these reforms are durable and effective through structural and personnel changes. By August

2025, the University must submit to the government a report—certified for accuracy—that confirms these reforms.

● Student Discipline Reform and Accountability. Harvard must immediately reform its student discipline policies and procedures so as to swiftly and transparently enforce its existing disciplinary policies with consistency and impartiality, and without double standards based on identity or ideology. Where those policies are insufficient to prevent the disruption of scholarship, classroom learning and teaching, or other aspects of normal campus life, Harvard must develop and implement disciplinary policies sufficient to prevent those disruptions. This includes but is not limited to the following:

o Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions or deplatforming, including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop a disruption or deplatforming; robust enforcement and reinstatement of existing time, place, and manner rules on campus, including ordering the Harvard police to stop incidents that violate time, place, and manner rules when necessary; a disciplinary process housed in one body that is accountable to Harvard’s president or other capstone official; and removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that delay and obstruct enforcement, including the relevant Administrative Boards and FAS Faculty Council.

o Harvard must adopt a new policy on student groups or clubs that forbids the recognition and funding of, or provision of accommodations to, any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment; invites non-students onto campus who regularly violate campus rules; or acts as a front for a student club that has been banned from campus. The leaders or organizers of recognized and unrecognized student groups that violate these policies must be held accountable as a matter of student discipline and made ineligible to serve as officers in other recognized student organizations. In the future, funding decisions for student groups or clubs must be made exclusively by a body of University faculty accountable to senior University leadership. In particular, Harvard must end support and recognition of those student groups or clubs that engaged in anti-Semitic activity since October 7th, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, Harvard Graduates Students 4 Palestine, Law Students 4 Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the National Lawyers Guild, and discipline and render ineligible the officers and active members of those student organizations.

o Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension.

o Harvard must investigate and carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years, including the Harvard Business School protest of October 2023, the University Hall sit-in of November 2023, and the spring encampment of 2024. This must include permanently expelling the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli

Harvard Business School student, and suspending students involved in occupying university buildings, as warranted by the facts of individual cases.

o The Harvard president and police chief must publicly clarify that the Harvard University Police Department will enforce University rules and the law. Harvard must also commit to cooperating in good faith with law enforcement.

  • ●  Whistleblower Reporting and Protections. The University must immediately establish procedures by which any Harvard affiliate can report noncompliance with the reforms detailed in this letter to both university leadership and the federal government. Any such reporter shall be fully protected from any adverse actions for so reporting.
  • ●  Transparency and Monitoring. The University shall make organizational changes to ensure full transparency and cooperation with all federal regulators. No later than June 30, 2025, and every quarter thereafter during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028, the University shall submit to the federal government a report—certified for accuracy—that documents its progress on the implementation of the reforms detailed in this letter. The University must also, to the satisfaction of the federal government, disclose the source and purpose of all foreign funds; cooperate with the federal government in a forensic audit of foreign funding sources and uses, including how that money was used by Harvard, its agents, and, to the extent available, third parties acting on Harvard’s campus; report all requested immigration and related information to the United States Department of Homeland Security; and comply with all requirements relating to the SEVIS system.We expect your immediate cooperation in implementing these critical reforms that will enable Harvard to return to its original mission of innovative research and academic excellence.

page5image1661371632

You can review the cumulative list of democratic backsliding and erosion by clicking on the menu button or Benchmarks button above. Til next week.

Tom’s Report on the State of Americas Democratic Health

As of April 11, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

The chaos and mayhem continue. While everyone was glued to the self-inflicted and manufactured tariff crises, democratic erosion and backsliding continued.

Of note this week were two Supreme Court’s rulings, one regarding a challenge to the government’s interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act and the other on returning a man wrongly deported to an El Salvadoran prison (also related to the the Alien Enemies Act), and two unprecedented executive orders directing the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland security to coordinate investigations on two former first term Trump administration appointees.

Trump added comedian Bill Maher to his trophy wall.

Attacks on academia, science, and books/ideas continued.

On April 7, the Supreme Court sided with Trump regarding the use of using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans associated with a criminal gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by, guess who, Trump.  Incredibly, the Court basically held that government actions under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review. The court sidestepped the constitutionality of using the Act in peacetime. The following is a summation of the ruling:

  • The plaintiffs according to the Court used the wrong argument.  The plaintiffs challenged the government’s “interpretation” of the Alien Enemies Act.  Citing a 1948 case, the Court stated that Alien Enemies Act is largely not subject to judicial review, or as they wrote, “preclude[s] judicial review.  
  • The plaintiffs should have used the Write of Habeas Corpus, which they did initially, but changed their argument.
  • The Court also removed the US District Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.  Stating that challenges must be heard in the district of confinement.  In this case Texas, the epitome of fairness and paragon of justice.
  • The Court did say that detainees must be given notice of deportation and that they be afforded an “opportunity to be heard.”  

The Court also issued a separate ruling directing the government to return a man improperly deported to an El Salvadoran prison be returned. However, the Court’s language in the ruling was so poorly and imprecisely worded giving the government wiggle room, which apparently they exploited because the following day, at a lower court hearing, the government refused to comply with lower court judge’s order to update the court on the government’s plans to return the man. The government’s lawyer stating he had no information to relay to the court. Can’t make this stuff up.

In an unprecedented and grim move, Trump signed two executive orders directing criminal investigation into two former political appointees from his first term, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. The two did not support publicly support Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen and asserted that there were not indications that the election was stolen. This is meant to silence every federal employee and every Trump appointee.

You can go to menu or benchmarks above to see the full cumulative list of benchmarks being tracked.

Former CISA Chief Chris Krebs targeted for Possible Criminal Prosecution in Trump Executive Order

In a significant and dangerous escalation of the use of criminal investigations to punish and intimidate, the former head of the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Chris Krebs was targeted for possible criminal prosecution in an executive order signed today by Trump. The executive order directed that the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security to “take all appropriate action to review Krebs.” Many will recall that Krebs refused to support Trump’s claim of electronic tampering of voter systems or talliers. He was head of CISA during Trump’s first term in office and oversaw the detection and mitigation of any cyber security threats to voting systems during the 2016 presidential election, which Trump lost.

The executive order states in part: “I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with any other agency head, to take all appropriate action to review Krebs’ activities as a Government employee, including his leadership of CISA. This review should identify any instances where Krebs’ conduct appears to have been contrary to suitability standards for Federal employees, involved the unauthorized dissemination of classified information, or contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149 of January 20, 2025 (Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship).” I presume “all appropriate action” includes criminal investigations and prosecutions.

This represents a reckless and perilous escalation of the use of the Department of Justice and other federal law enforcement agencies to punish those that Trump deems disloyal. Call, write, email your representatives. Write the Supreme Court Justices, let them know your thoughts.

 

Legal Challenges to Alien Enemies Act of 1798 Not Subject to Judicial Review Supreme Court Rules

On April 7, the Supreme Court sided with Trump regarding the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans associated with a criminal gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by, guess who, Trump.  Incredibly, the Court basically held that government acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review.  Let me say that again, the Court held that government acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review.  Below is a summary of the key points and below that the Court’s ruling:

  • The plaintiffs according to the Court used the wrong argument.  The plaintiffs challenged the government’s “interpretation” of the Alien Enemies Act.  Citing a 1948 case, the Court stated that Alien Enemies Act is largely not subject to judicial review, or as they wrote, “preclude[s] judicial review.  
  • Instead, the plaintiffs should have used the Writ of Habeas Corpus (see earlier blog post on Habeas Corpus), which they did initially, but changed their argument, according to the Court.
  • The Court also removed the US District Court, Washington DC, from jurisdiction to hear the case.  Stating that challenges must be heard in the district of confinement.  Note not arrest, but confinement. In this case Texas, the epitome of fairness and equity and liberal jurisprudence.
  • The Court did say that detainees detention must have some ‘judicial review’ and must be given notice of deportation and that they be afforded an “opportunity to be heard.” 

Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A931 _________________

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[April 7, 2025]

PER CURIAM. 

This matter concerns the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. 10030 (2025). The President issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals “who are members of TdA.” Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a pro- visionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation. Minute Order on Motion To Certify Class in No. 25−cv−00766. On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for up to an additional 14 days. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). 

We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of re- movable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “ ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humph- rey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). And “immediate physical release [is not] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.” Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54, 67 (1968); see, e.g., Nance, 597 U. S., at 167 (explaining that a capital pris- oner may seek “to overturn his death sentence” in habeas by “analog[y]” to seeking release); In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242, 254, 259 (1894). For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detain- ees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163−164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice af- ter the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a rea- sonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs. 

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay. 

The application to vacate the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted. The March 15, 2025 minute orders granting a temporary restraining order and March 28, 2025 extension of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 1:25-cv-766, are vacated. 

It is so ordered. 

“Hands Off” Louisa, Virginia Rally

Hands Off Signs

As part of nation-wide Hands Off protests and rallies, residents of Louisa, Virginia, assembled at the Court House steps this Saturday to add their voices to a growing chorus across America, and the world, excoriating Trump’s attacks on democracy.

Organized by the Louisa County Democratic Party, the rally was one of the largest gatherings, as I understand it, in memory. The diverse and enthusiastic participants focused on wide ranging issues: Constitutional rights, Education, Healthcare, Human and Civil Rights, Immigration, Justice, LGBTQ rights, Social Security, and Veteran Services. This wasn’t a one issue rally.

Boos and Jeers for Trump

Speeches, songs, and chants filled the Court Houses front steps from noon to two. Homemade signs expressed patriotism and anger. A number of speakers derided Trump’s attacks on democracy and also on our congressional district’s representative John McGuire (R) lack of honesty and integrity in the face of constituent questions.

A song or two
A Louisa Veteran

Speakers repeatedly called to protect social security, medicare, and medicaid –which assists Americas most vulnerable populations — from being cut to fund trillions in taxes cuts for the millionaire class. Boos and catcalls followed mentions of Trump’s tariffs. One speaker addressed the serious threats to veterans and their health services because of massive layoffs and program cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Trump, Musk, and McGuire the villains of the day.

A number of participants volunteered to speak to the assembled crowd. One told of his still living mom’s experiences in Nazi occupied France — she was 11 when they invaded — and her fear that America is heading towards fascism. I can relate to that as my mom and her family lived under Nazis occupation as well. She sees parallels today.

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of April 4, 2025

Weekly Summary of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

Trump’s pace has slowed but the damage to liberal democracy continues to accumulate, like DDT did in Bald Eagles once.  I mention the tariffs now, not because they are a backsliding of liberal democracy, but as they fail and economic chaos engulfs us, Trump will become more erratic and authoritarian thus accelerating the erosion of democratic values and norms.   

I would also be wary of federal government economic data.  The Departments that report the data, and offices that compile economic and labor data sets, are firmly in Trump’s hand.  Any bad economic data, I fear will be subjected to Trump’s SHARPIE statistical methodology.   

On the positive side, the lower courts for the most part are holding firm. There is the possibility that the judge overseeing the Venezuelan deportation case will hold the Trump administration in contempt this coming week. Stay tuned. Appeal Courts also seem leery of the constitutionality of many of Trump’s executive orders. As a reminder, written arguments for sustaining a pause on Trump’s Birthright citizenship order are due soon.

Below is this week’s summary.  To see the cumulative backsliding list click the benchmark or menu link above.

Diagnosis: Critical.  

Prognosis: Uncertain

Military Loyalty Tests

Trump fires General Timothy Haugh and Wendy Noble, Chief and Deputy Chief of the National Security Agency, America’s critical signals intelligence agency. As a reminder, the NSA is forbidden by law from technical eaves dropping on American citizens.

They were fired at the request of right-wing pundit Laura Loomer for not being sufficiently ‘loyal’ to Trump: Loomer posted on X they were fired for being disloyal to Trump.  Trump in a statement on AF1 heading to Florida, stated people will be fired because we don’t like them or “people that may have loyalties to someone else.”  As the robot in the mid-60s ‘Lost in Space’ TV used to sa, with arms flailing about: “Danger, Danger, Will Robinson.”

These firings come after the firing of several National Security Council Staff earlier in the week, also worryingly at the behest of Laura Loomer.  Press reports indicate Haugh testified in a closed hearing recently and was asked about the Signal scandal.  

Whether the President was angry at Haugh for not giving the party line regarding Signal is unknown but the most likely cause for the firings.  Nonetheless, Trump may have been looking for a reason to fire Haugh and Noble.  Not saying Trump ordered Haugh and Noble to eaves drop on American politicians and others, but that option certainly is a possibility given the rogue nature of these first months of his administration. Frankly, I ask why and how a right-wing pundit with no security clearances may have knowledge of Haugh’s closed door testimony to the Senate. And even more worrisome, why the hell is Trump having sensitive national security discussions with her.

Continued Human and Civil Rights Violations

ICE admits wrongfully detaining Maryland man, says they can’t return him to US from El Salvador prison. Calling it an “administrative error.” Worse, they say they can’t get him back. This man from Maryland — married to an American, and father of a 5-year-old autistic child — was rounded up as part of the Trump’s press event, AKA the mass deportation of Venezuelan gang members.  He was deported back to El Salvador, a country he fled because of gang threats without due process.

Rise of the Government Informer Class

Vigilante surveillance of pro-Palestinian activists on university campus(es).  Pro-Israeli activists are using AI facial recognition to identify and report pro -Palestinian activists/protestors to ICE for deportation, per NBC reporting.  The AI facial recognition was developed for this purpose.  A far-right group — Betar USA –claimed credit for one arrest, per WGBH reporting.

Acts of Cowardice Continue

In an act cowardice and self-censorship, the White House Correspondents Association cancelled comedian Amber Ruffin’s appearance at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, stating that they had “unanimously decided we are no longer featuring a comedic performance this year.”  This ends a 42-year history.

To avoid executive orders sanctioning them, several more law firms reached agreements with the White House, to include the law firm Wilkie Farr and Gallagher that Kamal Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, works for. They offered up $100 million in pro bono work for Trump priorities to avoid possible executive order sanctions.  Through these dragnets, Trump has almost garnered a quarter billion dollars in pro bono legal work for Trump initiatives.

New Punitive Investigations

The FCC began an investigation into ABC’s DEI practices. ABC is part of Disney.

Destroying Civil Society and a blow to Labor Unions

Tens of thousands of additional federal employee layoffs announced.  In addition, Trump bans federal government unions collectively bargaining ability. Agencies included in the ban are the Departments of State, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Energy, Health and Human Services, Treasury, Justice and Commerce and the part of Homeland Security responsible for border security. Police and firefighters will continue to collectively bargain. Another blow to labor unions.

Per CBS, senior officials at NIH terminated or reassigned:  “Senior leaders at multiple agencies were removed, multiple health officials said, including Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo. Marrazzo replaced Dr. Anthony Fauci as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, senior officials put on leave and reassigned to the Indian Health Service include Dr. Karen Hacker, head of the agency’s chronic disease teams, Kayla Laserson, head of its global health center and Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of the CDC’s STD and HIV/AIDS center.”

In a new executive order, President Trump targeted the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the federal agency charged with distributing Congressionally approved funds to state libraries and to library, museum, and archives program grant recipients.  The National Endowment for the arts was also targeted for layoffs and funding cuts.

“Vexation:” A Short History of Habeas Corpus in America

The Scene, Act 1

Imagine driving down Fredericks Hall Road in the early hours heading to work, sipping coffee, a black suburban following too close for comfort. Minutes later a sheriff’s deputy car pulls in between you and the suburban, turns on his or her emergency lights.  You pull over into the B&L Mart parking lot, the suburban following the deputy’s car into the lot.  

Out jump agents in camouflage vests, long guns at the ready.  They order you out of the car, pushing you to the ground, cuffing you, your body violated in every sense as they search you.  Before you know it your whisked away in an unmarked van to a non-descript detention center.  Your “Why am I being arrested?” protests ignored. Demands for a lawyers rebuffed. No Miranda warnings. Requests to make phone calls denied.  Within hours a flight, then a prison in a foreign country.

At best this sounds like a screenplay for a cheap, low budget film.  At worst, a nightmare.  Unfortunately, it’s the latter.  The Trump administration has used similar tactics repeatedly over several weeks.  One Maryland man, who was in the U.S. on protected status, was grabbed from the streets, detained, denied due process, and ended up in an El Salvadoran maximum security prison.  The government admitted later he was detained because of an “administrative error,” adding it was powerless to have him returned to the U.S. and his American wife and 5-year-old autistic child.   Several other persons legally in the U.S. have also been individually detained, imprisoned, and marked for deportation without due process.  

In a larger multi-state operation, hundreds of persons were detained and deported during arrests allegedly targeting Venezuelan gang members when Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.  Despite a federal judge’s order to stop the deportations pending court hearings, even ordering the return of flights in progress, the government willfully ignored the order and let the deportations proceed apace, citing that some of the planes were over international waters and therefore beyond their jurisdiction to recall. 

Newsfeeds showed the deportees led off the planes in shackles, moved from point to point by soldiers forcibly doubling them over, heads shaved for TV crew consumption.  A chilling display of dehumanization reminiscent of Nazi deathcamps.  

At the core of these detentions is the secretive nature of the arrests and reluctance and outright vexatious refusal to respond to federal judges’ orders to produce the body in court: The Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus’s roots go back to Anglo-Saxon times, evolving after the Norman Invasion in 1066, enshrined in the 39th clause of the Magna Carta in the 13th century, and in 1679, put into English law with the Habeas Corpus Act.  The reason for the 1679 Act, from what I can gather from its text, is that Sheriffs and others were claiming not to have received or misplaced writs of Habeas Corpus, causing “great delayes” and “long detaining’s in Prison….to their great charge and vexation.”   Sound familiar to Trump’s government lawyers?

You must put the 1679 Act within the 17th century’s context of the power politics between King and Parliament in England, eventually being settled as part of the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89 and the birth of the English Bill of Rights.  One mustn’t lose one’s head over this history (a little pun off the top of my head), but it is worth recalling.

Americans thought it such a great idea they put it in our Constitution, not once by twice.  It can only be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion.   The 1789 legislative act creating America’s judicial system gave federal judges the right to issue writs of Habeas Corpus but limited to federal matters.  This power to issue Habeas Corpus writs was expanded after the Civil War in 1867, to include State detentions.  

Rebellion

At the outset of the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in certain regions in April 1861. After the arrest of Marylander John Merryman, who was spirited off to a military fort, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney (of Dred Scott infamy) — who also oversaw Maryland’s federal circuit court – issued a writ of Habeas Corpus, demanding Merryman be brought before a judge.  Taney argued that only Congress can suspend Habeas Corpus, not the President.  Lincoln refused.

Lincoln’s Proclamation 94, issued in 1862, further expanded the geographic scope of the suspension of Habeas Corpus.  Congress debated the issue of whether the president or congress can suspend Habeas Corpus, as the Constitution is silent on this matter, but came to no definitive conclusion.  In 1863, nonetheless, Congress passed an Act Suspending Habeas Corpus to give Lincoln’s acts legal cover.  Lincoln signed the bill.

Alien Enemies Act 1798

Unfortunately, the Alien Enemies Act has been used to short circuit Habeas Corpus.  The Act has several parts, it includes a declaration of war, or invasion or predatory incursion by a foreign nation or government.  Only then can aliens of these invading nations be rounded up, or as the act states, “shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed as enemy aliens.”  The west coast roundup of Japanese aliens and citizens of Japanese ancestry and their interment in prison camps during the Second World War is one example.  

The round up of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act is absurd.    The gang is not a nation state, it is not part of an invading army or force, and a state of war between the U.S. and Venezuela does not exist.  And by the way, only Congress can declare war.

The War Mindset

This recent short circuiting of Habeas Corpus reveals the mindset of Trump and his administration.  They are at war with parts of America.  And they are using war-time emergency powers such as the Alien Enemies Act to dilute and nullify the Constitution.   Trump is on a war footing where no war exists, and Americans need to take notice.  If you think he will stop at non-citizens or legal permanent residents, I would think long and hard about that proposition.  Just as insidious are those lining up to inform on folks.  Are we heading to a police state?

Think about our neighbors.  Migrants live and work in our community.  Their kids go to our schools. They are a vibrant part of our community and economy.  They build and repair homes, own businesses such as restaurants, gas stations, construction and landscape companies. They pay taxes and shop at local stores. They have the same right to the constitutional protections that we enjoy from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, their day in court.   They should not have to live in fear of disappearing from Fredricks Hall Road and ending up in an El Salvadoran maximum security prison.

Lastly, what can we do?  We have agency, so talk to your representative and express your concerns.  Stress the need for legislative reform.  Ask them to introduce reform bills.  I would start with repealing the Alien Enemies Act and clarify through legislative action who can suspend Habeas Corpus, Congress or the President.  Talk to your neighbors and friends.  Let them know what is going on and what is at stake.

For those on the other side of the aisle who think that Trump is doing is great, I ask you to think down the road.  Restraining a president with expanded Kingly powers will be like holding a wolf by the ears.  The next president may not like you. I hope your Spanish is good.

A New “Remedy:” America’s Social Contract Under Siege

America floundered after the Revolution ended.  A confederation of sovereign states jealously guarding their individual prerogatives, bickering constantly, the central government virtually powerless.  The Articles of Confederation was a disaster.  

In 1786 commissioners from five states met in Annapolis, ostensibly to discuss trade between the states and international trade relationships.  Among the 12 in attendance were James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.  They apparently did not accomplish much, but they did agree to meet the following year in Philadelphia, this time inviting commissioners from all the states.  The stated purpose of the convention was not to develop a new form of government, however, that was precisely what James Madison, among several others, intended.  The convention was to create a new social contract between the people and the states and save the union.

The Philadelphia Convention gathered on May 14, 1787. After waiting for more delegates to arrive they got down to business, debating and agreeing on the rules of Convention.  On May 29th Edmund Randolph of Virginia “opened the main business” of the Convention.  Speaking to the “crisis,” that is the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and “prophecies of the American downfall,” he proposed four objectives “to revise the federal system.  We ought to “inquire 1. into the properties, which such a government ought to possess.  2. The defects of the confederation. 3. the danger of our situation& 4. The remedy.”

That ‘remedy’ has withstood the test of change since the Constitution was adopted by the States in 1789. Two hundred and thirty-six years.  The Constitution was and is not perfect, in fact it was not designed to be infallible, like a religious text proclaiming the word of God.  It was made by humans for humans, and they had the wisdom to recognize that things, well, change.   A Bill of Rights was added early, critical amendments were enacted over the decades.  Slavery was finally abolished (although after 96 years of relentless brutality), African Americans and women won the right to vote, birthright citizenship.   It is the social contract that endures and keeps us bound to one another. It’s what makes us American.

That remedy, that social contract, our Constitution is at risk.  Day after day the current administration attacks America’s social contract.  Executive orders rain down like hail stones, crushing the tender plants in our garden of democracy. If anything, they are messages to his base, a veneer of action, but they are also projecting the America he wants and the social contract he envisions. It isn’t a pretty one.

What happens when his attempts at changing the Constitution through fiat fails.  The Supreme Court says, “no.”  What then?  I doubt he will retreat; he will fight.  One way to fight is to organize a new constitutional convention, a new remedy, a new social contract. Can you imagine Georgia’s delegate being Marjorie Taylor Greene? 

Will our most cherished rights disappear into the ether?  Replaced by an authoritarian social contract?  Emojis of flags and flames and fists. If the convention meets and writes a new constitution, I suspect It will fundamentally alter our relationship to the government, and not in a good way.   

If Trump’s executive orders are a guide, a new social contract will eschew separation of powers, in its place a powerful executive, with unlimited terms.  King like.  Gone will be an independent judiciary, replaced by a Supreme Court appointed by the President, serving at his will. Gone will be the House of Representatives and a Senate, replaced by a unicameral body elected by state representatives, a rubber stamp affair.  A state religion declared.  A Christian religious test to hold office.  Separate but equal codified.

Don’t forget about The Bill of Rights and all amendments that will be nullified. Do you see them offering robust press freedoms?  Protecting you from unreasonable searches and seizures.? What about jury trial, or right to counsel.  Do you see that being in the new social contract?  I see the curtailment of rights, women’s right in particular.   Same sex marriage banned, access to contraception gone (Recall Justice Thomas’ call for cases), homosexuality criminalized.  The list of rights rescinded would go on and on.  It wouldn’t be a positivist social contact it would be negativist one, restricting rights not establishing rights.  It won’t be a mixed government of the one, the few, the many.  It will be the one. Is that an America you can live in?

That’s the social contract I see down the road if people stay at home, keep their heads down, and give in to Trumpian chaos and mayhem. Yes, reform is needed to get money out of the campaigns, stopping politicians from enriching themselves, keep the oligarchs from buying elections like Musk is now trying to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, but a new federal system that gives up on democracy – the many — is not the ‘remedy.’  This new Trumpian social contract would be the opposite of reform, it would turn America not back to 1954 or 1859, or to 1789. It would transform America into an autocracy of one man rule..

This weekend, May 5th, there will be a rally at the Louisa Courthouse from noon to two.  Come have your voices heard.  Celebrate the 238th anniversary of the start of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

A dear John Letter: A Response to a Letter from Representative John McGuire

Below is a response to an email I received from Virginia’s 5th Congressional District Representative John McGuire. It was written in response to a letter or email I sent to him. I am appreciative and grateful for his response. I expected it would be one of those form letters, pandering and short on substance.

To my delight it was long, specific, and expressed his world view and take on recent controversial actions by the Trump administration, in particular the alleged unlawful deportation of hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador’s maximum security prison. To my dismay, it demonstrates a fundamental break in who is and who is not entitled to basic constitutional rights.

The letter below is my response. I will mail him a hard copy.

Dear Mr. McGuire:

Thank you for your email dated March 28, regarding the recent deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans alleged to belong to a criminal gang to an El Salvadoran maximum security prison. I appreciate your candor and directly addressing my concerns. However, I would like you to consider some of my observations regarding your response. They are based on my 29 years of federal law enforcement experiences.

In your letter you stated that “Law enforcement spent weeks drafting the list of deportees to make sure all were connected to the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.”  Adding, that if some were mistakenly identified as a gang member, it really didn’t matter because they were in the country illegally: “I am aware there has been some discourse surrounding whether all those deported were connected to Tren de Aragua. I have full faith in our law enforcement, but on the rare chance that some of those who were deported happen to not be gang members they were still here illegally and therefore have committed a crime.”   

I would rather have 150 guilty men go free than imprison 50 innocent men.  It is cruel to send someone who would maybe get six months in a U.S. minimum security prison, than an indefinite stay at a high risk maximum security prison in El Salvador. Cruel and unusual punishment don’t you think?

What you didn’t mention is that despite a Federal District judges order to stop the deportations and return the flights pending hearings for the deportees, the government deported them anyway.  Claiming they were over ‘international waters.’  How could this be if they were over the Gulf of America?  

I believe your claim that you venerate our Constitution, but you seem unaware that our great Constitution has a Habeas Corpus clause.  That is the government must produce “the body” in a court so that the defendant has a right to challenge the charges and their detention.  Basically, that their arrest and confinement were legal.  This fundamental legal concept goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.  That is an 850-year-old tradition bequeathed to us by the British.  And Trump throws it out like yesterday’s trash.  The Judge’s order to stop the deportation was basically a Writ of Habeas Corpus in name and spirit.

I think we can both agree with the proposition that all inhabitants of the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigrant status have the following basic, fundamental human rights we cherish as a nation:

  • The presumption of innocence
  • To be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures (an arrest is a seizure)
  • The right to counsel
  • Right to a speedy and public trial
  • Not to be deprived of life, liberty, property, without due process of law
  • Not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment

The Venezuelans, it appears, were denied every one of these rights enumerated above. I am curious then, why you think these rights do not apply to them?

The arrests and deportations of these Venezuelans is the exact opposite of how our judicial system is supposed to work. The law enforcement agency making the arrests – the ones you have ‘full faith in’ – are not the prosecutor or the judge or the jury.  Our system is designed to be adversarial, where the government must present evidence, to either a grand jury or magistrate before an arrest is made; or, after a warrantless arrest brought before a judge, and in the end convince a jury.

Even the basic right to challenge the government’s assertions of either criminality or being in the country illegally, was denied the Venezuelans, it appears.  From what I can gather, the government presented no evidence.  The court decides whether their detention is legal not ICE or you or Trump.  I can see the discussion now:  Judge, “What proof do you have that the defendant is a gang member?” Agent: “He has gang tattoos.”  Judge: “WTF! Get out of my Court.”  And it goes downhill from there.  

Tattoos? That would be like rounding up everyone who was near Capitol Hill on January 6 wearing a red MAGA hat and deporting them to Guantanamo without due process.  Don’t you think?

Spuriously invoking and using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the government denied their rights, disappearing them:  No due process, no right to counsel, no hearing before a judge, sent to prison in El Salvador without trial for indefinite detention.  That should scare the crap out of everyone.  Then, to top off this charade of justice, DHS Secretary Noem shows up in El Salvador for a photo opportunity.  Thank God there were not gravel pits nearby.

I know I can be pedantic about American history, but did you know that the Alien Enemies Act can only be invoked after a declaration of war?  I really, really, really, hope you are aware that only Congress has the constitutional and legal prerogative to declare war.  The President’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was therefore illegal, extra-Constitutional.

You and I both swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. I did my best to uphold that oath and I expect you to faithfully execute that oath for the people of Virginia’s 5th Congressional District.  It’s your duty to challenge these trespasses and gross injustices by Trump, not excuse them.

Listen, I am not against deporting criminal aliens and believe in protecting our borders. One of the last cases I oversaw resulted in a child sex trafficker getting 25 years in federal prison. But let me ask you this, why protect our borders when a sitting president destroys the country from within by attacking the fundamental rights we agree are essential to this great country’s democracy? When police ‘gather lists’ at the direction of political leaders we are in dangerous territory. Whatever you think ails this country, strangling democracy to save it is not the right answer.

Thank you and I look forward to our continued dialog.