• A federal appeals judge criticized the Trump administration's handling of deportations, suggesting that "Nazis got better treatment" during World War II.
• Judge Patricia Millett questioned the lack of due process for Venezuelan migrants sent to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.
• The Trump administration recently invoked the centuries-old law to deport over 200 migrants, sparking legal challenges and public outcry.

In a pivotal hearing on Monday, U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett expressed strong concerns regarding the treatment of Venezuelan migrants under President Donald Trump's administration, particularly referencing the use of the Alien Enemies Act. "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here," Millett remarked, highlighting the absence of due process that these individuals faced as they were deported to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador.

The appeals court hearing came in response to calls from the Trump administration to lift a temporary injunction on deportations issued by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. On March 15, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, claiming it was necessary to swiftly remove over 200 individuals whom the government identified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang. However, those involved in the legal battles argue that many of the deported individuals had little opportunity to contest their status or to be informed about their deportation.

The legal arguments presented revealed contrasting views on the necessity of due process for the deported migrants. Millett emphasized the lack of individualized hearings, stating, "For me to say, ‘Excuse me, no, I’m not, I’d like a hearing,’" should be a fundamental opportunity granted to any individual facing removal from the country.

Furthermore, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken a leading role in challenging these deportations, arguing that many of those affected were misidentified as gang members and lacked any substantive opportunity to defend themselves.

During the proceedings, Judge Millett's colleagues also engaged in the discussions, with Judge Justin Walker probing for clarity on the processes surrounding the detentions. The case's context became increasingly tense as it underscores broader concerns regarding constitutional protections amid the escalation of executive actions.

In light of recent events, former White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen publicly criticized Trump's approach to deportations, emphasizing the constitutional implications of removing individuals without due process. He has filed briefs on behalf of conservative groups disputing the administration's aggressive tactics, which they argue violate foundational principles of governance.

The outcome of this legal battle could set a significant precedent regarding the use of the Alien Enemies Act, last invoked during periods of international conflict in U.S. history. It remains to be seen how the court will rule and what impact the findings will have on future immigration policies.

As the case unfolds, public scrutiny continues to mount over the administration's actions, with Trump firmly asserting that he is acting on the voters' wishes and criticizing judges who oppose him as "crooked." For more detailed updates on this developing story, visit The Hill.