Background on Deportations

During a recent weekend, several high-profile U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, publicly endorsed the deportation of over 200 Venezuelan immigrants. This action took place despite a federal judge ruling that ordered a halt to the removals.

The administration’s justification for these deportations referenced a law from 1798, which is only applicable under conditions of declared war. Critics argue that this invocation demonstrates a troubling disregard for legal norms.

Vice President’s Remarks and Backlash

Vance defended the deportations on social media, asserting that the individuals included “violent criminals and rapists.” However, he offered no due process for the deportees, many of whom the administration labeled as gang members.

The vice president’s comments incited widespread outrage, with prominent political scientist Norman Ornstein condemning the claim. Ornstein highlighted the lack of verifiable evidence regarding the criminal backgrounds of those deported and criticized the government’s circumvention of judicial authority, labeling it a “Gestapo” action.

Trump’s Claims and Responses from El Salvador

In a separate statement on Truth Social, Trump baselessly accused former President Joe Biden of sending the deported Venezuelans back into the U.S. He expressed gratitude to El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele for accepting the deportees. Bukele’s administration has faced significant criticism for human rights abuses in its prison system.

Mocking the federal judge’s order, Bukele claimed that the decision to halt deportations arrived “too late.” This assertion was echoed by the White House, which maintained that the timeline allowed for the deportations to proceed—despite the judge’s ruling.

Legal Actions and Reactions

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups have called for immediate judicial scrutiny regarding the deportation flights. They urged the Trump administration to produce sworn declarations confirming whether or not flights took place following the judge’s orders.

Concerns were raised regarding the assertion from the U.S. Department of Justice, which claimed that its actions under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 were not open to judicial review. Critics, including immigration policy experts, argue that no prior president has claimed such broad, unilateral deportation authority without adhering to established legislative frameworks.

Another Deportation Case Raises Eyebrows

Amid the tumult surrounding Venezuelan deportations, a separate incident highlighted similar issues of legal compliance. Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a kidney transplant specialist at Brown University, was deported after returning from a family visit in Lebanon. Despite a federal court order requiring advance notice of her deportation, she was placed on a flight to Paris against the court’s instruction.

Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts expressed concern over potential violations of his order regarding notice before the expulsion.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has since demanded the immediate readmission of Dr. Alawieh, emphasizing her vital role in patient care and raising alarms about the implications of such actions on the immigration system, particularly for Muslims and people of color.