Pod Insights Civics 101 How is the Alien Enemies Act being used right now? About this episode Now that we have explored what the Alien Enemies Act is, we dive in to how it's being used to shape deportation policy under President Donald Trump.
Note: We recommend listening to the prior episode first! Staying in your podcast feed? It's the episode right before this one, called "What is the Alien Enemies Act."
CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!
To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.
Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript 5,450 words · 14 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:03 Hannah McCarthy? This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.
0:05 Speaker 01 I'm Christina Phillips, and today we are talking about the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act. Last week, we did an episode on what the Alien Enemies Act is and how it's been used throughout history. And if you haven't listened to that one, please go back and listen to it before listening to this episode, because it lays the groundwork for what we're talking about today. And of course, I have linked it in the show notes.
0:30 Hannah McCarthy? But to give us a quick recap, the Alien Enemies Act is a wartime law that was passed in 1798. It allows the president, during war, invasion, or predatory incursion by an enemy nation, to detain and deport anyone 14 years of age or older from that enemy nation who is not a US citizen. Predatory incursion, by the way, is not defined by that act, but it is a term that was used during that era to describe, for example, a raid on Virginia by super infamous defector Benedict Arnold. And this act, Christina, has not been invoked all that much.
1:08 Speaker 01 No, it hasn't. It's only been invoked four times: in the War of 1812, World Wars I and II, and now in 2025 through a proclamation by President Donald Trump in March.
1:20 Hannah McCarthy? Now, we know the Alien Enemies Act does not give the president the right to detain or deport anyone who is a noncitizen. It has to apply to people from a specific country, specifically those countries engaging in war, invasion, or predatory incursion, like we said. So Christina, who are those people in this case?
1:42 Speaker 01 So the Trump administration is using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan citizens and nationals in the United States, who the administration claims are members of Tren de Aragua, a gang also known as TDA.
1:56 Speaker 02 You'll see crime all over the country dry up. Essentially, that's what Venezuela and other countries are doing. They're getting rid of their criminals and putting them into the United States of America.
2:07 Speaker 01 And actually, I think we should just read part of the executive order, which is called "The Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua." So here's what it says. "I find and declare that TDA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. TDA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States, both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela. I make these findings using the full extent of my authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs under the Constitution."
2:51 Hannah McCarthy? All right, let's pause here for a second. So it's not just that Trump says that TDA is invading the United States. He also says TDA is working with the Maduro regime, AKA President Nicolas Maduro's government, which is often described as an authoritarian dictatorship, but it is the Venezuelan government, which makes Venezuela the enemy nation in this case, right?
3:18 Speaker 01 Right. And here's a little bit more of this executive order. "Based on these findings and by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including 50 USC 21," now that's referring specifically to the Alien Enemies Act, including the section we read in the last episode, "I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TDA, are within the United States and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States, are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies."
3:55 Hannah McCarthy? I noticed, Christina, that this proclamation is specifically targeting people who are part of TDA, not all Venezuelan citizens.
4:03 Speaker 01 Yeah, so the Alien Enemies Act doesn't require proof that someone is involved in some kind of criminal activity or deliberately working with the enemy nation or even a terrorist in order to justify detention and deportation.
4:18 Hannah McCarthy? But this proclamation does state that additional requirement. And the Trump administration says that this justifies immediate detention and deportation.
4:27 Speaker 03 Do you think you have the authority, the power to round up people, deport them, and then you're under no obligation to a court to show the evidence against them?
4:36 Speaker 04 Well, that's what the law says, and that's what our country needs because we were, unfortunately, they allow.
4:42 Hannah McCarthy? But even if someone is being deported, even under the Alien Enemies Act, they still have some rights under the Constitution. You know, we established that in our last episode. Even if you are a noncitizen, even if you're in the country without legal status, even if you are an alleged terrorist, you still have the right to due process, meaning everything from being told when and why you are being deported to being given access to legal counsel and the opportunity to challenge the claims against you in court.
5:15 Speaker 01 So the short answer is yes. The longer answer gets into what proper due process looks like.
5:22 Speaker 05 So what the Supreme Court has said is that Alien Enemies Act detainees must receive notice that they are subject to removal under the act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
5:42 Speaker 01 This is Liza Goytine. She's the senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. A habeas petition, by the way, is actually a habeas corpus petition. And habeas corpus is a legal principle that means someone has a right to challenge the legality of their detention in a court of law. She's talking about a ruling that came out shortly after the Trump administration began deporting people under the Alien Enemies Act, deportations that, the courts pointed out, violated people's right to due process.
6:15 Speaker 05 Courts have been very concerned about the lack of due process, certainly in the beginning, when the administration stealthily, or at least tried to do this stealthily, whisked people away on a plane without any notice or any opportunity for those people to try to seek judicial review or try to somehow stop this from happening.
6:37 Hannah McCarthy? All right, so the stakes are high here. If you deport someone before they have a chance to exercise those rights, that's kind of the end of the line, right? You can't really undo that decision because the person is no longer in the United States.
6:52 Speaker 01 Yeah, exactly.
6:55 Speaker 01 So let's talk about what that deportation process looked like in the beginning.
7:00 Speaker 06 The Trump administration has deported some 250 people it claims are gang members from Venezuela, but the people were not returned to Venezuela. They were flown to El Salvador. Salvadoran officials have imprisoned them. No evidence.
7:13 Speaker 01 The announcement that Trump had signed the Alien Enemies Act proclamation came out around 4:00 PM on Saturday, March 15. And within 90 minutes of that announcement, the first plane believed to be holding deportees flew out of Texas, crossed the border, and was bound for El Salvador.
7:31 Hannah McCarthy? 90 minutes. That seems to suggest to me that people were being rounded up and detained prior to this proclamation.
7:39 Speaker 01 Oh, yeah. We know that the administration was already detaining some Venezuelans and other migrants under other policies and provisions prior to this proclamation. So over the rest of that day, March 15, several more planes containing deportees left the United States, also bound for El Salvador. That same day, a district court judge ordered a temporary halt to any imminent deportations under the Alien Enemies Act after the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of five people, and the ACLU was claiming that the administration was not giving them enough time to exercise their due process rights before they were being deported out of the country. Now, by Monday, the following Monday, at about 5:00 PM, the administration announced that at least 137 people
8:24 Speaker 01 had been deported under the Alien Enemies Act.
8:27 Hannah McCarthy? Was this around the time that a judge ordered the administration to turn the planes around?
8:32 Speaker 01 Yeah, that was that same judge in that district court.
8:35 Hannah McCarthy? Okay.
8:35 Speaker 05 The US district judge issued the order after lawyers said two planes were already in the air at the time of the ruling.
8:41 Speaker 01 Part of the issue for that judge was that he had a right to judicial review, but he lost that power if these people had already left the country before he could evaluate the legal process the administration was using.
8:53 Speaker 05 What exploiting a wartime power allows the administration to do, or what they've... Believe it allows them to do is to bypass any kind of hearing or any kind of process like that, which fundamentally means that people will be deported erroneously. You know, without hearings to actually weigh the evidence, without giving people an opportunity to contest the evidence against them and to prove that they are not members of this criminal gang. Mistakes will be made and mistakes have been made.
9:31 Speaker 07 But today CBS News has obtained a list of people deported, hundreds of alleged gang members, sent this past week to El Salvador. But on that list was a Venezuelan migrant living and working in Dallas with no criminal record.
9:45 Speaker 08 Through government documents and interviews with lawyers and families, we found that at least three of the deported men, including Agelvis, had been carefully vetted to come to the US under the Refugee Resettlement Program, a process for people fleeing war.
9:58 Speaker 01 And eventually this escalated to the Supreme Court, which temporarily halted the deportations.
10:04 Speaker 05 Didn't this happen in the middle of the night or something?
10:07 Speaker 01 Yeah, around 1:00 AM. And actually, this is pretty extraordinary for the Supreme Court to step in like this. The court said, quote, "The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court." And that is referring specifically to a group of detainees in Texas. But elsewhere in the country, the administration was continuing deportations.
10:29 Speaker 09 From Denver to Chicago to Newark, immigration officials say ICE agents made 956 arrests on Sunday alone. And while New York City immigration officials say they've seen-
10:40 Speaker 05 After the Supreme Court held that the administration had to provide reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to seek judicial review through habeas petitions, the administration interpreted that requirement in a way that simply did not comply with the spirit of what they were asked to do. The written notice that people received was in English only, regardless of whether- Those people spoke English. Nothing in that notice mentioned that they had a right to review. It just said you are being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. The notice was not provided to people's attorneys, even when they were represented by attorneys. And they were given 12 hours.
11:24 Speaker 05 Even if they were given this notice, you know, 7:00 PM, 8:00 PM at night, they had 12 hours to state their intent to file a habeas petition. If they didn't do that within 12 hours, they could be deported. The courts have, that have looked at this, have uniformly said that is not due process.
11:43 Speaker 01 And then we get another decision from the Supreme Court in May, which said, quote, "Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal surely does not pass muster," end quote. And by the way, that was signed by seven justices with Alito and Thomas dissenting.
12:04 Hannah McCarthy? All right, what does pass muster?
12:07 Speaker 01 Yeah, so we don't know yet. And until that question is answered, these deportations across the board have been suspended.
12:16 Speaker 05 The courts are coalescing around a 21-day notice requirement with the notice, you know, provided in Spanish or in the language that the person speaks. At least one court has said that it has to include something about the right to review. The notice has to be provided to attorneys. The courts are coalescing around a much more fulsome notice and opportunity for review than what the administration was trying to do.
12:42 Hannah McCarthy? All right, I have another question about this. Have the courts talked at all about whether or not the use of the Alien Enemies Act is justified? Because Trump's proclamation says that the United States is experiencing an, quote, "invasion or predatory incursion from Venezuela." And I'm just wondering, what counts as an invasion or predatory incursion? And is that up to the courts to decide?
13:09 Speaker 01 Yeah, so this is being challenged in court, and we will talk about that right after our break.
13:14 Hannah McCarthy? But before that break, just remember you can always go to civics101podcast.org to ask us your questions about what is or is not going on in the United States of America. We might just answer your question with an episode.
13:40 Nick Capodice? There is nothing quite like having stuff in your closet that you love and you know you can count on for any occasion, except maybe giving someone else that feeling. And this holiday season, Quince is where I'm finding those pieces. Quince makes elevated everyday essentials using premium materials like Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and it is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories that cut out the middleman, so you get luxury quality pieces without the luxury price tag. As this lovely fall is winding to a close and we slouch into winter, I wish more than anything, someone had gifted me a yak wool hoodie.
14:24 Nick Capodice? I'm dead serious. It's good enough for the yak. I mean, it works really well for the yak, right? It would work for me. And it looks hot. So give the gift of quality this holiday season. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers, or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK as well. And last thing, when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was Civics 101. It's the best way to support the show. All right. Haven't you out there ever Googled your own name? Like, actually done it? You'll find your address, your phone number, maybe even that police report from the time
15:08 Nick Capodice? you went to see Rain Man in the movie theater, but you were underage? Maybe that one's just me. But here's the thing, there are companies called data brokers, whose entire business model is collecting your personal information and selling it to advertisers, to strangers, sometimes to people running scams. And once your data's out there, it just keeps circulating. That is where Incogni comes in. Incogni contacts data brokers on your behalf and sends them removal requests over and over, so your info doesn't just pop right back up. You set it up once, and they keep working in the background. You can even track the progress on a dashboard. And for our listeners, we have an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan.
15:52 Nick Capodice? Just go to incogni.com/civics, or use the code CIVICS at checkout. There's a link in the episode description. Remember, They can't harm you if they can't find you.
16:11 Hannah McCarthy? We're back. This is Civics 101. And Christina, you were about to tell me about how the administration is justifying the use of the Alien Enemies Act, mainly the claim that Venezuela is coordinating with the gang Tren de Aragua to orchestrate an invasion of the United States, and that this invasion justifies the use of the Alien Enemies Act.
16:34 Speaker 01 Yes, the administration has been sued in court over this reasoning. This is Liza Guaytin again.
16:39 Speaker 05 The sticking point in terms of whether the president's actions are authorized under the Alien Enemies Act has been whether or not there is an invasion or predatory incursion. On the question of whether or not the invasion or predatory incursion is being perpetrated by a foreign government or foreign nation, there's no question about what those terms mean. If you look at the history of the Alien Enemies Act, there is no question that these terms invasion and predatory incursion were meant to address acts of war. In the case of invasion, it would be something like a full-scale ground assault that had occurred maybe before Congress had actually declared war. So at that point, it's an invasion but
17:24 Speaker 05 not a declared war. If you look at predatory incursion, and you want to get a sense of what that was referring to, right before the start of the quasi-war, John Adams told Congress that he thought the Atlantic Ocean insulated us from invasion, but that major seaports, such as New York City, were navally undefended and were subject to predatory incursion. So that's what they were talking about there. It was still acts of war, but it was acts of war short of an actual full-scale ground assault on the United States. So that's what was meant originally. Now, in some of the cases that have been bubbling up, the
18:06 Speaker 05 administration's main argument is that the Alien Enemies Act really isn't a war power in the sense that it does not require an act of war. The government has argued in court that an invasion Can include any hostile entrance or hostile encroachment, while a predatory incursion encompasses an entry into the United States for purposes contrary to the interests or law of the United States. That is an incredibly broad definition. It would seem to cover anyone who enters a country without documentation. And that person can then be called an enemy alien. What we are hearing now from the government is, well, if this involves a foreign terrorist organization, then we can use this war power.
18:50 Speaker 05 That is not an argument that's been made before. And it's also not consistent with the way foreign terrorist immigrations are treated under the law. There is a law that provides special rules and procedures for the deportation of people who are members of foreign terrorist organizations. That is a part of immigration law.
19:12 Speaker 01 Have the courts had anything to say about this? With the exception of one decision in Pennsylvania, the federal courts have rejected the Trump administration's definition of invasion or predatory incursion. Two of the more recent cases, for example, were in New York and in Texas. And has the Supreme Court had anything to say about this? So, no, they have not taken up the question of whether the administration's claims about TDA and Venezuela meet the threshold of invasion or predatory incursion. In fact, they made it really clear that they were not making that decision. And they gestured to this important separation of powers balance when it comes to the courts, the Constitution, and the interests of the federal government.
19:55 Speaker 01 Quote, "We did not on April 19th, and do not now, address the underlying merits of the parties' claims regarding the legality of removals under the AEA. We recognize the significance of the government's national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution."
20:18 Speaker 01 In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously.
20:24 Hannah McCarthy? But this could still go back to the Supreme Court.
20:27 Speaker 01 It could. Even Justice Kavanaugh suggested that it will. At one point, he wrote, quote, "The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this court."
20:38 Hannah McCarthy? And also, none of these decisions are addressing the question of whether Venezuela is actually invading the United States with or through TDA.
20:49 Speaker 01 Yeah. And by the way, the administration doesn't even seem to agree on this, even though Trump says this is an invasion.
20:57 Hannah McCarthy? Or predatory incursion.
20:59 Speaker 01 Yeah, one or the other. Either way, connected to the Venezuelan government, which is important, right? It's what makes the Alien Enemies Act potentially justifiable here. But the Office of National Intelligence said they didn't find substantial evidence connecting TDA to the Venezuelan government.
21:16 Speaker 11 A newly declassified memo drafted by US intelligence agencies seems to contradict one of President Trump's reasons for one of his controversial immigration policies, deporting migrants to a prison in El Salvador. Now, the memo disputes the Trump administration's claims that the Venezuelan government is working with a notorious gang.
21:36 Speaker 01 One memo from that office said, quote, "While Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States."
21:58 Hannah McCarthy? So some of the people in the federal government who helped the president figure out what is and is not a threat from a foreign government are saying that they cannot find evidence that this foreign government, Venezuela, is actually threatening the US.
22:15 Speaker 01 Yeah. And after that, by the way, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, fired the two officials that released these reports. And her office told the press they were fired for their opposition to the president. And we only know what those officials had to say because of a Freedom of Information Act request by the press.
22:33 Hannah McCarthy? But it does sound like they were fired for sharing information that contradicted the president.
22:38 Speaker 01 I think that's safe to say, yeah.
22:45 Hannah McCarthy? Now, has this been challenged in court? And what role do the courts have here?
22:51 Speaker 05 Whether Trenja Aragua is acting as a part of or at the direction of a foreign government or a foreign nation, on that point, the courts have simply deferred to the administration's litigation position and President Trump's statement in his proclamation that Trenja Aragua is acting at the direction of the Venezuelan government, despite the fact that Trump's own intelligence community has issued two different reports concluding that that is not the case. Even in cases that ultimately ruled against the administration, there's been an unwillingness for judges
23:34 Speaker 05 to probe whether the factual assertions made by the Trump administration are true. So in other words, the courts have said, you know, here is the conduct that is required in order to meet this definition of a predatory incursion. We will now accept whatever President Trump's characterization of Trenja Aragua's conduct is, and then we will compare that description to our definition. And so there's been really complete deference to how President Trump describes the conduct. Generally speaking, this kind of determination gets a lot of deference. Courts often consider this to be a political question,
24:16 Speaker 05 the kind of thing that the president or Congress needs to decide and that courts should not be deciding.
24:26 Hannah McCarthy? All right, this brings us back to what the Supreme Court said about national security concerns versus what the courts can or should say. Because there's this principle of giving the executive branch some deference. Because the executive branch knows some things and has some expertise that the courts potentially do not, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security.
24:51 Speaker 05 And that it would be impractical and unwise for the courts to make decisions about these things, which are the expertise of the executive branch.
24:59 Speaker 01 Yeah, this is called the political question doctrine, and it's a major factor when the courts are looking at what the executive branch is doing and why. And so far, federal courts have not pierced that doctrine.
25:13 Speaker 05 What about Congress, by the way? Where is Congress in all of this?
25:16 Speaker 01 So first of all, Congress has not declared war on Venezuela, but Congress has also not challenged the administration's use of wartime powers, such as the Alien Enemies Act. They could try to limit those powers through a vote, but that would require some political consensus and political will. Congress could also use the power of the purse, including the $80 billion in funding the administration is requesting for immigration law enforcement in the current spending bill. Congress could also repeal the act if they wanted to. Democratic legislators have introduced a bill in the House to repeal the act, and past Congresses have tried to repeal it before, so far unsuccessfully. And Liza does point out that there are more modern laws on the books that deal with the issues
26:01 Speaker 01 the Alien Enemies Act was created for, back when we basically had no law enforcement of any kind.
26:07 Speaker 05 We have ample other means of addressing threats that we face, national security threats, during wartime, not during wartime. The president has ample authority to deport people who are actually members of Trenor Aragua under immigration law. Okay, so there may be other laws to use, but this law is still on the books, and the president is currently trying to use it.
26:34 Speaker 01 Yeah, and just to zoom out for a second to the larger strategy of the administration when it comes to immigration and deportation. Alongside the use of the Alien Enemies Act, the administration has increased the presence of ICE across the country. That's the federal law enforcement entity that is overseeing immigration. And the administration has begun detaining people who are showing up for their mandatory immigration court appointments. It's also announced its plan to revoke temporary protected status from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the United States, which the Supreme Court has said the administration has permission to do.
27:14 Speaker 05 And when we say temporary protected status, this is basically protection from deportation because it would be unsafe for you to be deported for any number of reasons.
27:24 Speaker 01 Yeah, and I think we should also pay attention to how the administration has been responding to the courts and all the legal decisions we've seen, which have so far slowed down the administration's ability to deport people in huge numbers, which is something President Trump promised he would do.
27:41 Speaker 04 Judges are interfering supposedly based on due process, but how can you give due process to people who came into our country illegally? They want to give them due process. I don't know.
27:53 Speaker 05 You know, spokespersons for the administration have basically said that they will be watching the courts to make sure the courts do the right thing in these Alien Enemies Act cases. And if they don't do the right thing, then the president will have to suspend habeas corpus.
28:09 Speaker 12 Well, the Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So I would say that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts, that's the judicial branch of jurisdiction over immigration cases.
28:37 Speaker 05 President Trump has, for a very long time, referred to unlawful immigration as an invasion. And, you know, originally that seemed to just be rhetorical. Now he's trying to imbue it with legal significance. The Alien Enemies Act is one example of that. But he also issued an executive order in which he purported to suspend essentially the laws that provide protection against removal, various protections against removal, including the right to seek asylum. And so, based in part on this claim of an invasion, Trump... In one of his executive orders claimed the right to basically suspend asylum law.
29:20 Speaker 05 Now, part of the problem that President Trump is running into is it turns out that even these laws, even these really, even the pretty draconian powers given to the president under the Constitution in some cases and under various statutes during an invasion, do not authorize him to pick and choose what statutes the government is going to comply with, and it does not authorize him to suspend constitutional rights such as due process. And that is why we are now hearing talk about the president suspending habeas corpus.
30:02 Speaker 05 Because if your goal is to just detain people, deport people with no judicial review and no other impediment, right, just without impediment, just detain people because you say you can detain them, deport them because you say you can deport them, the closest the president can get to that is through the suspension of habeas corpus.
30:33 Speaker 01 So, can the president suspend habeas corpus? You find the grounds for suspension in the suspension clause of the Constitution. Most legal scholars agree that habeas corpus cannot be suspended without the approval of Congress, and indeed, all four times habeas corpus was suspended was with congressional approval. In fact, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, before she was a justice, wrote that the suspension clause, quote, "does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it," end quote.
31:10 Hannah McCarthy? But there is always a chance that Congress does get on board and says, "Yeah, you can suspend habeas corpus."
31:17 Speaker 01 Yeah, or President Trump could declare that he's going to do it without Congress. And I think the question there is, if he does, will Congress use their mechanisms for checking the president to stop him from doing so?
31:31 Speaker 05 And I would assume that the courts would probably have something to say about that as well.
31:36 Speaker 01 Yeah, I think based on everything we know, if a president were to try to suspend a constitutional right, people would sue the administration, but we're not there yet. So I asked Liza what we should be paying attention to going forward.
31:49 Speaker 05 Great, so we have these decisions that are binding in the jurisdictions where they have been issued. We haven't yet heard the administration say that they're not binding or that they're not going to comply with them. So at some point, this will probably get up to the Supreme Court, and let's say the Supreme Court rules in a way that the administration disagrees with, and maybe says that the Alien Enemies Act does not authorize what President Trump is trying to do here. Then, the next question will be, does the president try to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus in violation of the Constitution? If he were to do that, the Supreme Court would then say that's a violation of the Constitution. I feel pretty confident that that's what the Supreme Court would say, that the president doesn't have that authority.
32:31 Speaker 05 At that point, then we have the courts ruling the wrong way, as the administration has sort of described it with the Alien Enemies Act cases. What happens then?
32:42 Speaker 01 And in the meantime, I'll say this to anyone who is trying to wrap their head around this: start with the text. Don't start with how someone else describes the law to you, and that includes us, that includes the president, that includes the Supreme Court. Read the law yourself. And I know I'm saying that after spending two episodes breaking down these laws, but before you try to hear what other people say the law means, at least have some sense of what you think you understand and what you don't.
33:14 Speaker 01 This episode was written and produced by me, Christina Phillips, with help from Hannah McCarthy and Rebecca Lavoie. Our team includes producer Marina Henke and host Nick Capodice. And Nick, I know you've been out for a couple of weeks, but I wanted to thank you for letting me step into the mic chair and also say you're welcome, because I'm not using music with marimba in it, even though you're not here to stop me. On that note, music in this episode from Epidemic Sound and Chris Sabriski. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.
33:58 Hannah McCarthy? Sorry, let me just drink some water. And I'm sorry for the swallowing sounds on this tape.
34:02 Speaker 01 Oh, I don't even hear it.
34:02 Hannah McCarthy? Rebecca.
34:04 Speaker 01 Oh, yeah, sorry, Rebecca.
34:05 Hannah McCarthy? You will.
34:08 Speaker 01 Yeah, this is called "The Political Question." In light of the foregoing, Lor-
34:15 Hannah McCarthy? Hmm.
34:30 Speaker 13 Did you know that if your spouse goes missing and you don't tell anyone, that's not necessarily a crime? That surprising fact is at the heart of the brand-new season of Bear Brook, the critically acclaimed true crime podcast from New Hampshire Public Radio. I'm your host, Jason Moon. In this season, Bear Brook investigates another New Hampshire mystery. A Christmas tree farmer with dementia vanishes. His wife never reports him missing. Can he still be found? Don't miss it. Follow Bear Brook wherever you get your podcasts.
Previous What is the Alien Enemies Act? Next Cinematic Civics: The Manchurian Candidate Page updated November 3, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated