Judicial Clash Over Use of 18th Century Law in Deportations

A U.S. appeals court judge has compared the rights given to Nazis during World War Two with the current treatment of Venezuelan migrants under the Trump administration. The case challenges the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people alleged to have gang ties, raising significant judicial questions.

In a dramatic judicial showdown, U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett asserted that Nazis received better legal treatment during World War Two than Venezuelan migrants facing deportation under the Trump administration's application of an antiquated 18th-century law. The intense courtroom exchange highlighted questions over executive power and due legal process.

The crux of the case lies in the Trump administration's reliance on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans accused of gang affiliations without due process. Concerns were raised when migrants, including a Venezuelan soccer player, were deported without a final removal order, fueling criticism over alleged misuse of executive authority.

The broader legal battle has turned into a confrontation over presidential power, with judges like U.S. District Judge James Boasberg playing pivotal roles in halting deportations temporarily. The ruling has sparked a complex legal discourse about the balance between executive decisions on foreign affairs and judicial oversight, further intensifying political divides.

(With inputs from agencies.)