A full federal appeals court is set to review a significant case challenging the constitutionality and application of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a rarely invoked law granting the President broad powers over non-citizens during wartime. The decision to hear the case *en banc*, meaning before all active judges of the circuit, underscores the profound legal and civil liberties questions at stake.
The Alien Enemies Act is one of the oldest statutes on U.S. books, enacted during the Quasi-War with France. It authorizes the President to “apprehend, restrain, secure and remove” non-citizens who are subjects of a country with which the United States is at war. While never fully repealed, its direct application has been infrequent in modern history, often overshadowed by more contemporary immigration and national security laws. Its provisions have largely remained untested in the current legal landscape.
The Legal Challenge
The current litigation, known as *Doe v. United States*, arises from the detention and attempted removal of an individual identified as a national of a country with which the U.S. is engaged in hostilities. The plaintiff argues that the Act, as applied, violates fundamental due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court had previously issued a ruling in the case, but the full court opted to reconsider the matter due to its “exceptional importance” and the need to address conflicting interpretations of constitutional principles applied to such an antique statute. The decision to grant an *en banc* review signals the judiciary’s recognition of the case’s far-reaching implications for executive power, civil liberties, and the rights of non-citizens.
Arguments and Implications
Attorneys for the plaintiff contend that the Alien Enemies Act lacks modern due process safeguards, potentially allowing for arbitrary detention or removal without adequate judicial review. They argue that applying a law from the late 18th century without contemporary constitutional scrutiny could undermine fundamental protections.
“This statute predates much of our constitutional jurisprudence on due process and civil liberties,” stated Professor Elena Rodriguez, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown University. “The framers certainly didn’t envision a system where individuals could be stripped of their rights without robust judicial oversight, especially after centuries of legal development.”
Conversely, government lawyers are expected to argue for the President’s inherent authority to protect national security during wartime, asserting that the Act is a necessary tool for executive action in times of crisis. They may emphasize the deference historically granted to the executive branch in matters of foreign policy and national defense.
“The decision to convene the entire court underscores the profound questions surrounding executive power and individual rights in wartime,” commented David Chen, a senior analyst at the Brennan Center for Justice. “It’s a critical moment for clarifying the boundaries of a nearly 227-year-old law against the backdrop of modern constitutional principles.”
The outcome of this *en banc* review could have significant ramifications, potentially redefining the scope of presidential power during conflicts and setting new precedents for the treatment of non-citizens within U.S. borders. Legal scholars note that a ruling could either reaffirm the rarely used Act’s constitutional viability or effectively render it obsolete through strict interpretations demanding contemporary due process standards. The case is being closely watched by civil liberties advocates, immigration rights organizations, and national security experts.
Source: Read the original article here.
