Jay Town

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
🧵
Did President Trump's Administration defy a judge's order to keep Venezuelans in the U.S.?

Did Judge #Boasberg have the authority to issue such an order?

Same answer to both questions.
A thread:

@realDonaldTrump @PressSec @sonnyjoynelson @mrddmia @TheJusticeDept @ProfMJCleveland @POTUS @SecRubio @Sec_Noem @GatesMcgavick

For context, a brief timeline of events below:
2/ 

The Alien Enemy Act ("AEA") is a 230-year-old law that can only be invoked by the President or Executive Branch "when there is a declared war…or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the…United States.”
3/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 

Under the AEA, the President must make a public proclamation of the attempted or ongoing invasion or predatory incursion (or war) and declare the group or nation state actor (hybrid criminal state) that they are alien enemies under the AEA. @POTUS made such a proclamation on March 15, 2025, via Executive Order.
4/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/

The AEA then allows the President the extraordinary authority to define and declare an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" is occurring or has occurred, to define the alien enemies involved, and to remove the alien enemies from U.S. summarily.
5/ 

"Alien enemies" are those who are chargeable (not charged) with actual hostilities or other crimes. However, even those outside those categories (e.g., Venezuelan illegal aliens) are removable under the AEA but may be afforded some period of time, determined by POTUS, to pack up their effects. But they have no right to stay.
6/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/22

Under the AEA, federal courts MUST cause apprehension and removal of alien enemies. A hearing as to whether a detained individual is within the removal class of person may be held, if necessary.  The law specifically states that is the court's only duty in an AEA removal. 
7/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/23

Interestingly enough, a hearing on whether the five Plaintiffs before the court were from Venezuela (the removable class) was admitted by Plaintiffs in their own emergency filing. 
This moots much, if not all, of the Court's role for these Plaintiffs.
8/

There are several flaws with the @ACLU's filing and, most certainly, Judge Boasberg's granting a TRO based upon such a flawed filing.

First, the filing claims that AEA may only be invoked during times of war and to counter "warlike actions". 
FALSE!
9/

In Ludecke v. Watkins, Truman invoked the AEA three years after WWII. SCOTUS very clearly held that AEA removal powers extend beyond times of war or "warlike actions" (whatever that is).
10/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/160/

The ACLU informs the Court that neither Tren de Aragua ("TdA") nor Venezuela engaged in an "invasion or predatory incursion". These terms have no statutory definitions. They are defined exclusively by the President as Commander in Chief!
11/ 

It is the President's power alone to invoke the AEA, declare an invasion or predatory incursion, and identify by whom.
In Ludecke, SCOTUS tells us the AEA involves “matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility.”

In other words, the invocation is a non-justiciable political question and the courts cannot substitute their judgment for the Presidents!
See also Baker v. Carr.
12/

The ACLU also convinced Judge Boasberg that TdA is not a nation state and therefore the AEA is inapplicable.
However, President Trump, in his invocation of the AEA, smartly intertwined the Venezuelan government with the TdA gang as a "hybrid criminal state" because the two work seamlessly together.
13/

Furthermore, the standard for every TRO is "irreparable harm".  
The Supreme Court has expressly denied that an illegal alien's removal from the U.S. can ever constitute irreparable harm justifying a TRO. 

Fun Fact: The Obama Administration argued this very point in Nken v. Holder...and won!
14/

The ACLU makes 9 totals claims for relief.  All are without merit or moot.

Claim 1 seeks to substitute the President's judgment of an invasion or predatory incursion with the judgment of either the ACLU or Judge Boasberg.
This has the same legal legitimacy as substituting Trump's AEA judgment with whoever wins the Publishers Clearinghouse.
15/

Claim 2 suggests that the Immigration and Naturalization Act has somehow supplanted the Alien Enemies Act.
Of course, nothing in the INA expressly or implicitly repeals the AEA. 
The AEA grants broad powers in narrow situations. 
The INA governs all other removal process.
16/

For instance, Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 argue Plaintiffs will be harmed or tortured if they return to Venezuela, or they deserve more judicial process before they are sent back to Venezuela.
This is moot because they were sent to El Salvador!
17/

Claim 7 argues that Plaintiffs need more time to get their effects in order before removal.
This is moot because...
18/ 

Claim 8 suggests that the Alien Enemies Act violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because there it requires no formal process of removal.
Only problem is that the guys who wrote the Alien Enemies Act also wrote the Fifth Amendment! 
19/

Judge Boasberg has NO AUTHORITY to even consider a TRO in this case.
Judge Boasberg has NO AUTHORITY to turn around government aircraft.
Judge Boasberg has NO AUTHORITY to substitute his judgment for the President's.
Judge Boasberg has NO AUTHORITY to issue a nationwide TRO halting the removal from the U.S. members of a foreign terrorist organization.
Judge Boasberg used his authority to reference Taylor Swift in his Order though, so there's that "abuse of discretion".
20/

President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act lawfully, and he acted accordingly.
AEA powers are non-justiciable and unreviewable, says SCOTUS. 
After Trump's EO on January 20th declaring TdA an FTO, there is no legal difference between TdA and ISIS.

Ask yourself, if Biden had just deported 3 terrorists (much less 300) would the ACLU and the left be so apoplectic? 
Then why are they?

🧵
Let’s entertain the idea that the @CBP officers in Minnesota had disarmed Alex Pretti just seconds prior to Pretti being shot and killed by the CBP officer, as has been alleged by politicians and many on @X.  

(I don’t suggest that’s factual.)

What are the legal

This scenario might be termed an “imperfect self-defense”. The officer was mistaken. 

But the questions “did he have to shoot Pretti?” and “was it objectively reasonable he shot Pretti?” are two VERY different things under the law. 

2/

Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute “willful conduct” prosecutable under the law.

Situations involving lethal force are almost always fluid and quickly evolving. Decisions to deploy deadly force are made in milliseconds. 
3/

The legal standard for the use of deadly force by an officer is an objective standard. Simply put, would a reasonable officer in a similar situation have acted similarly?

If so, the shooting is lawful.

If not, the shooting is unlawful.
4/

The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

IOW, an investigation could prove the force was not necessary but objectively reasonable. 
5/

In the instance of Pretti, the relevant “totality of the circumstances” are:

-Pretti was armed
-Pretti had committed a felony 
-Pretti was resisting arrest
-Officers yelled “GUN!!”
-Officers “peeled off the tangle”, per their training 
-Covering officer shot Pretti
-Pretti died

There are more facts than those listed, but the ones listed are the most critical for the development of the analysis as to “what would an objectively reasonable officer do under the same circumstances”.

And this is the ONLY legal analysis.
7/

So even if the use of lethal force was unnecessary (in a hindsight evaluation), it can still be objectively reasonable to have used lethal force. 

The scenario above paints a grim reminder of the dangers in resisting lawful police commands, especially when armed. 
8/

If the facts were to establish that the shooting officer knew there was no threat of death or SBI, or that a reasonable officer would perceive no such threat, then the use of lethal force would be unlawful.

I have advocated for the prosecution of cops more than once in certain

As I see it, and as someone who has investigated/prosecuted hundreds of homicides and sat on several officer-involved shooting reviews, the use of deadly force against Pretti WAS LAWFUL under the known circumstances…even if Pretti had, in fact, been disarmed.  

It was an

If the federal government determines that the @CBP officers acted reasonably under the totality of the circumstances, then that officer becomes shrouded in QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. He’s immune from prosecution by the state or the feds. 

11/

Qualified Immunity (or immunity of any type) is NOT a jury question.

The legal point of immunity is to avoid suffering through the criminal or civil process altogether. It is an undeniable affirmative defense.

12/

I understand the consternation with this legal analysis, but the law must acknowledge that law-enforcement officers are necessarily placed in dangerous and quickly evolving situations where mistakes can be made. 

It would be a legal absurdity for our laws to make a reasonable

In hindsight or would a reasonable officer have made that reasonable assessment in the two seconds in which all shots were fired?

Real life doesn’t have a pause button.