In a moment that left jaws slack and headlines spinning, a federal appeals court judge appointed by President Barack Obama compared the Trump administration’s deportation of violent gang members to the treatment of N**is during World War II—a stunning declaration that, at minimum, exposed the deep legal and philosophical divide over President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport foreign nationals tied to one of the Western Hemisphere’s most brutal transnational gangs: Tren de Aragua (TdA).
The comment came during a fiery hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Judge Patricia Millett, questioning a Department of Justice attorney, suggested that the Trump administration provided fewer procedural safeguards to TdA members than the U.S. government offered to actual N**i detainees during wartime. Her exact words? “N**is got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act than has happened here.”
Let that sink in.
It was a jarring assertion—one that, for many, crossed the line from legal scrutiny into rhetorical provocation. Judge Millett argued that Trump’s March 15 invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act lacked basic due process, highlighting the absence of formal hearing boards, published regulations, and advance notice to the individuals being deported. The administration, she said, acted swiftly and without procedural infrastructure.
There is very little of real interest so far in the oral argument in the Appeals Court re the Venezuela gang deportation case.
The points raised have been pretty obvious.
Judge Millett (Obama appointee) is going to agree with Judge Boasberg 100%. She was quite strident on…
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 24, 2025
But the Justice Department pushed back hard. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign clarified that affected individuals had indeed been able to file habeas corpus petitions—legal actions challenging their detention or removal—and that at least some of those petitions led to temporary relief. That, he argued, demonstrated the presence of due process, not its absence.
At the heart of the dispute is Trump’s decision to apply rarely used wartime powers to expel foreign nationals tied to TdA, a gang whose members have been implicated in crimes ranging from murder to the armed occupation of residential complexes in the United States.
On the campaign trail and from the Oval Office, Trump made it clear: national security and sovereignty would no longer be sidelined by red tape or legal hesitancy. That philosophy has now put the executive branch on a collision course with the judiciary—again.
The broader legal implications are serious. If the court affirms Judge Boasberg’s injunction halting the deportations, it could significantly curtail the president’s ability to invoke emergency powers—even in situations involving foreign criminal organizations.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court takes up the case and rules in Trump’s favor, it would mark a sweeping expansion of executive discretion under the Alien Enemies Act, reshaping how America responds to threats originating beyond its borders.
Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are beginning to draw their own battle lines. With nationwide injunctions routinely blocking executive orders—sometimes from a single district court judge—there’s renewed momentum behind legislation to limit judicial overreach and restore the balance between co-equal branches of government.