Metro

The federal judge presiding over the case of a purported member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua in an opinion Tuesday afternoon ruled that the Trump Administration must provide 21 days’ notice and an “opportunity to be heard” for any migrant who has been slated for deportation under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The ruling by District Judge Stephanie L. Haines in Johnstown contended that the present 14-day notice was “deficient” and she set down new rules for cases in her western Pennsylvania district.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled those individuals marked for removal under the AEA must have the opportunity to respond, she explained.

Haines stated in her 43-page opinion, “In sum, the court finds that (the Government) must provide to individual detainees who are subject to the AEA and the Proclamation (issued by President Donald Trump) notice before removing them: twenty-one days notice and an opportunity to be heard; notice that clearly articulates the fact that the individual detainee is subject to removal under the Proclamation and the AEA, and notice in English and Spanish, the language of those sought to be expelled, and if needed, Spanish-to-English interpreters.”

The proclamation Haines discusses was issued by the president in April and was directed at members of Tren de Aragua.

The State Department has declared that Tren de Aragua is a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

It is estimated the issuance of the proclamation led to the arrest and removal of more than 200 alleged gang members who were sent to a prison in El Salvador — without hearings.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups launched challenges to the Trump proclamation.

One of the challenges was filed by the ACLU on behalf of an alleged Tren de Aragua member referred to by the pseudonym A.S.R.

The ACLU argued on behalf of A.S.R., 30, who came to the United States through the southern border four years ago, contending the Trump proclamation was unconstitutional.

Haines agreed that the lack of notice and the relative short time for individuals to respond was a violation of the Supreme Court order.

She explained that in her position as a judge, she was familiar with immigration cases, given the fact that the Moshannon Valley Detention Center in Philipsburg, Clearfield County, is a major detention center used by the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A.S.R. was an inmate at Moshannon Valley and was whisked away by ICE to another detention center in Anson, Texas, shortly after the ACLU challenge was filed in Johnstown on April 15.

She explained in her opinion that she was familiar with the fact that ICE detainees are frequently moved, and it is difficult, under those circumstances, for the individual detainee to maintain contact with his attorney, and she noted, “Such individuals cannot realistically file for habeas relief (a court challenge) within a matter of hours.”

She continued, arguing that “the Court is concerned that, if it does not provide sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard, individuals who are not subject to the AEA and the Proclamation may be errantly removed from this country.”

She concluded her analysis by noting, “the Court finds that 21 days’ notice does not unduly burden the government.”

While the judge was critical of the removal process, she attempted to draw a fine line between the power of the court to interfere with the government’s mandate to fight terrorism and conduct foreign policy.

She stated the court “will afford substantial deference” to the president’s conduct “in the realm of sensitive and weighty interests of national security and foreign affairs.”

“That deference is partially due to the fact that neither members of the Supreme Court nor most federal judges begin the day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its people,” Haines wrote.

The president, she reasoned, has available intelligence services whose reports should not be published to the world.

“It would be intolerable that courts, without relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret,” she started.

She accepted the premises of the proclamation “that Tren de Aragua is acting at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.”

She also accepted the government’s conclusion that Tren de Aragua is committing a “predatory incursion” into the United States on behalf of the Maduro regime.

Such an incursion is possible without the use of military force, Haines explained.

Tren de Aragua has been declared a terrorist organization by the State Department.

It has thousands of members and is bent on destabilizing the United States and flooding the country with illegal narcotics — a weapon against America, she argued.

The gang, Haines concluded, is “united by the common goal of causing significant disruption to the public safety — whether that be the safety of persons, property or pecuniary interests — of those within the United States.”

She also quoted from a Declaration of Support submitted by the government to the court prepared by Selwyn Smith, deputy assistant director of Homeland Security Investigations, who reported Tren de Aragua is involved in human trafficking, bank fraud, narcotics, extortion and homicide.

“Tren de Aragua is now operating in 40 states,” Haines stated in her opinion.

The profits from Tren De Aragua are shipped back to South America, according to the Smith statement that was entered into the record.

She also found Trump’s proclamation “is in step with the AEA.”

The Alien Enemies Act grants the president power to detain and deport enemy aliens for the safety of the country.

A.S.R., according to the ACLU, denies he is a member of Tren de Aragua and has yet to be certified as a member by ICE.

Haines’s findings that Tren de Aragua poses a national threat are at odds with an opinion issued by Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a district judge for the Southern District of Texas, who reviewed statements submitted by the government depicting Tren de Aragua activities in the United States as a predatory incursion.

He concluded they do not.

District Judge Howard K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York in a May 6 opinion concluded, “the predicates for the Presidential Proclamation that Tren de Aragua ‘has engaged in either a war, invasion of, or predatory incursion of the United States,’ do not exist.”

He stated Tren de Aragua “may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking, but that is a criminal matter, not a predatory incursion,” according to Hellerstein.

Attempts to contact the ACLU attorney who argued the case before Haines on May 5 were unsuccessful.