“The Nazis obtained a better treatment,” says Judge about the deportations of the Law of Alien Enemies of the Trump Administration.

The United States treated the alleged Nazis during World War II that the Trump administration treated Venezuelan migrants last week, a federal judge of appeals said to a lawyer from the Department of Justice during a judicial hearing on Monday.

The United States Court of Appeals for the DC circuit is listening to arguments about the use of the Trump administration of the Alien Enemies Law last week to deport more than 200 alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador without due process.

“There were many people. There were no procedures to notify people,” Judge Patricia Millett said. “The Nazis obtained a better treatment under the alien enemies law.”

Judge Millett said that the alleged Nazis received audience joints and were subject to established regulations, while the alleged members of the Aragua train did not receive such rights.

“There are no regulations, and agency officials did not adopt anything to administer this. People were not given notice. They were not told where they were going. Those people were given in those planes that Saturday and did not have the opportunity to present straps or any kind of action to challenge the elimination under the AEA,” said Judge Millet. “What is in fact what I said?”

“Well, his honor, we certainly play the Nazi analogy,” said Deputy Attorney General Drew Ensign, arguing that some of the men could present beans requests.

Ensign compared an order from the American district judge James Boasberg temporarily blocking deportations to a judge who directed a group of transporters from the southern Sea to the Persian Gulf, an analogy that took an immediate rebuke of Millett.

“Wait. Wait,” said Millett. “To affirm a power to do that does not order that the ships move in foreign waters, right? That is a direct judicial process that allows the president of the Supreme Court and the circuit.”

Judge Millett and Ensign seemed to agree on one thing: the president’s actions have taken the “unprecedented territory.”

“I think the intrusion on the war powers and the president’s foreign policy powers is not preceded,” Ensign argued.

“Well, this is an unprecedented action,” Millet replied. “Then, of course, there is no precedent for it, because no president has used this statute in this way, which does not mean in one way or another if it can be done, but simply to say that we are in an unprecedented territory.”

The hearing arrives hours after Judge Boasberg ruled that migrants deserved to have a judicial hearing before their deportations to determine if they belonged to the Train de Aragua gang.

In a ruling that denies the application of the Trump administration to dissolve its order blocking deportations, Judge Boasberg wrote that the “unprecedented use” of Trump of the Alien enemies law does not eliminate the government’s responsibility to ensure that the eliminated men could dispute their designation as alleged gang members.

Last week, Trump invoked Alien enemies law, a war authority used to deport non -citizens with little or not due process, arguing that the Venezuelan gang Train of Aragua is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States. Boasberg temporarily blocked the use of the law by the president to deport more than 200 alleged gang members to El Salvador, qualifying the “terribly terribly” and “incredibly problematic” removals.

An official of the application of immigration and customs of the United States, later recognized in a affidavit that “many” of non -citizens deported last week under the law of enemies Alien had no criminal record in the United States.

“The court does not need to resolve the thorny question of whether the Judiciary has the authority to evaluate this statement in the first place. That is because it is likely that the plaintiffs are successful in another equally fundamental theory: before they can deport themselves, they can be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine if the act applies to all in all,” Judge Boasberg wrote on his Monday, adding that the men have their case.

Judge Boasberg acknowledged that the use of the Alien Enemies Law “implies a large number of complicated legal problems,” but avoided the broadest issue of whether the law was properly invoked, instead of focusing on due process deserved by men. He added that men have been irreparably damaged by their removal to a prison of El Salvadora where they face “torture, beatings and even death.”

“The federal courts are equipped to judge that question when people threatened with detention and elimination challenge their designation as such. Because the appointed plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Aragua train, they cannot be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge,” he wrote.

Judge Boasberg also questioned the accusation of the Trump administration that the decision risks national security, noting that men would still be detained within the United States if they had not been deported.

During a judicial hearing on Friday, the lawyers of the DOJ recognized that the men deported in the Alien enemies Law have the right to a habit hearing, where they could dispute their alleged membership in the train of Aragua, but they refused to vote that each man would be given an audience before they were retired from the country.

The Trump administration has asked the Court of Appeals to revoke the judge Boasberg that blocks deportations.

If the DC Circuit Court of Circuit annuls the Boasberg block of the use of the president of the Cigüy War Law, the Trump administration could exercise the authority to deport any alleged member of the migrant gang with little or not due process.

The lawyers representing Venezuelan men attacked under Trump’s proclamation have argued that the president exceeded his authority by using the alien enemies law against a gang, instead of a state actor, outside the time of war.

“The president is trying to write the limits of Congress outside the law,” argued the plaintiffs, and added that US presidents have used the law three times during or immediately preceding a war.

But the Trump administration has argued that the Judiciary does not have the right to review the use of the Alien Enemies Law, claiming that deportations fall under the powers of article II of the President to eliminate the alleged terrorists and execute the foreign policy of the country.

“The president’s action is legal and is based on a long history of use of war authorities against organizations related to foreign states and national security judgments, which are not subject to the second judicial divination,” DAJ lawyers have discussed in judicial presentations.

The Trump administration is asking the Court of Appeals to annul the Boasberg Temporary Restriction Order that blocks deportations, while Judge Boasberg continues to examine whether the Trump administration deliberately challenged its order by sending men to a prison in El Salvadoran instead of returning them to the United States as indicated.

“The government is not being terribly cooperative at this time, but I will reach the bottom of whether they violated my order and who ordered this and what is the consequence,” said Boasberg on Friday.

With deportations under the law of alien enemies temporarily blocked, the Trump administration has promised to use other authorities to deport non -citizens. During the weekend, the president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, announced that the country had reached an agreement to resume repatriation flights of Venezuelan migrants from the United States

“We will continue to point to the worst of the worst, what we have been doing from the first day, and deporting from the United States through the various laws in the books,” Tom Homan border told Jon Karl of ABC on Sunday.

The panel of three people, today’s audience, today’s arguments include two judges nominated by Republican presidents, including one nominated by Trump himself. The DC circuit is the last stop before the Trump administration could take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, where Trump nominated three judges during their last period, solidifying the conservative majority of the Court.