“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Judge Stephanie Haines, who was nominated by Donald Trump to the federal district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, became the only federal judge in the country to explicitly authorize the Administration to use the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador or elsewhere under a March proclamation by Trump. Haines’ ruling contradicts holdings by several other district judges who have rejected such requests, and the issue is likely to continue to be litigated, perhaps including in the Supreme Court. Haines’ May 2025 decision, which is likely to be appealed, was in A.S.R. v Trump.
What has happened in this case?
A.S.R. is a Venezuelan immigrant to the U.S. who has been held in immigration custody since earlier this year, primarily at the ICE Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania. Fearing that he was at risk of deportation under Trump’s order concerning members of the TdA terrorist gang from Venezuela (which he has denied), A.S.R. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court on April 15 before Judge Haines. Later that day, the judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping any transfer of A.S.R. until May 13 while the court a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt any deportation of A.S.R. as the case is considered.
How did Haines rule and why is the result harmful?
Judge Haines rejected the motion for a preliminary injunction on whether Trump could use AEA to deport A.S.R. This contradicted several other district judges around the country, who have held that it is “unlawful for Trump to invoke” the Act to remove alleged TdA members outside the usual immigration process and temporarily or permanently stopped such deportations. Haines rejected the argument that the AEA applies only when there is an actual “invasion” or “predatory incursion” against the US.
Haines did, however, grant summary judgment in favor of A.S.R. on the issue of the notice and procedure that must be provided to an immigrant, rejecting the government’s claim that it could provide as little as 24 hours’ notice. According to Haines, the Administration must provide at least 21 days’ notice, in Spanish or a language they understand, and an opportunity to challenge the deportation in court.
While the notice provisions of Haines’ order are positive, the ruling that Trump can use the AEA to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members creates a harmful split among district judges around the country on this important issue that higher courts, perhaps the Supreme Court, will need to resolve. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.