Fifth Circuit en banc throws out Trump deportation case as moot
The en banc Fifth Circuit dismissed W.M.M. v. Trump as moot after the three plaintiffs were deported under other statutes.
Today the full Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, dismissed the lawsuit W.M.M. v. Trump on procedural grounds, noting that the three plaintiffs had been deported through statutes unrelated to the Alien Enemies Act. The case had previously seen a panel conclude that the Act, which permits detention and removal only during a declared war or an actual invasion, could not be invoked for illegal migration or drug smuggling. By declaring the appeal moot, the court also vacated that earlier opinion, leaving the core constitutional question unanswered.
In a concurring opinion, Judge James Ho contended that the president should receive absolute deference when declaring an invasion, a stance challenged by Chief Judge Jennifer Elrod during oral arguments. The debate touched on the potential for the Act to be used to suspend habeas corpus and to permit states to wage war without congressional approval. The author of the analysis also referenced an amicus brief filed on behalf of the Brennan Center and the Cato Institute. The dismissal postpones any definitive ruling on the president's authority under the 1798 statute.
Why it matters
The decision leaves unanswered whether a president can use a 1798 law to deport large groups during peacetime.
In this story
