News

A federal appeals court ruled on September 2 that the Trump administration cannot use an 18th-century law to quickly deport suspected gang members.

Its decision largely hinged on the administration’s assertion that the Venezuela-based gang Tren de Aragua had invaded the United States.

“Applying our obligation to interpret the (Alien Enemies Act), we conclude that the findings do not support that an invasion or a predatory incursion has occurred,” the ruling said.

The conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 decision effectively blocks the government from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act’s fast-track process to deport people it says belong to the gang. Such an invasion or incursion is a necessary condition for the US to deport people using the law.

Here are five things to know about the Alien Enemies Act, the court’s ruling and what could come next:

How did the Trump administration use the law before the ruling?

On March 15, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which lets the president detain and deport people from a “hostile nation or government” without a hearing when the US is either at war with that country or the country has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” an invasion or raid legally called a “predatory incursion” against the US.

That same day, the Trump administration deported more than 230 Venezuelan men to the Center for Terrorism Confinement, or CECOT, a maximum-security El Salvador prison. An investigation by ProPublica and other news organisations found the vast majority of the men had no criminal records. And none of the men’s names appeared in a list of alleged gang members kept by Venezuelan law enforcement and international law enforcement agency Interpol.

In July, as part of a prisoner exchange between the US and Venezuela, the men deported from the US and held in CECOT were returned to Venezuela.

Several legal challenges followed after Trump’s invocation of the law. But the September 2 appellate court’s ruling is the first to address whether Trump legally invoked it.

What did the appeals court say about an invasion?

The court said Tren de Aragua has not invaded or carried out a predatory incursion against the US.

The appellate court disagreed with Trump’s March assertion that “evidence irrefutably demonstrates that (Tren de Aragua) has invaded the United States.” To determine whether Tren de Aragua had invaded or carried out a predatory incursion, the court had to define what each of those terms meant.

“We define an invasion for purposes of the (Alien Enemies Act) as an act of war involving the entry into this country by a military force of or at least directed by another country or nation, with a hostile intent,” the ruling said.

As for a predatory incursion, the court said the term “described armed forces of some size and cohesion, engaged in something less than an invasion, whose objectives could vary widely, and are directed by a foreign government or nation”.

The court ruled that a country “encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organised force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States”.

The court said the mass migration of Venezuelan immigrants did not constitute an armed or an organised force.

Was any part of the ruling favourable to the Trump administration?

The court said it does not have the power to rule on the accuracy of the information the Trump administration presented about how closely Tren de Aragua is tied to the Venezuelan government led by President Nicolas Maduro.

But the court ruled that Tren de Aragua can be considered a government or nation for the law’s purposes, assuming Trump’s assertion is true that the group is being led by the Venezuelan government.

Nevertheless, the court ruled, there’s no invasion.

Trump’s assertion about the Maduro administration’s links to Tren de Aragua was contradicted by an intelligence community assessment.

“While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables (Tren de Aragua) 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,” the National Intelligence Council said in an April report.

In May, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired two National Intelligence Council officials who wrote the assessment, according to The Washington Post.

What did the court say about due process?

The appellate court said, based on available information, an updated process the government is using to inform people they will be deported under the law seemed to follow due process requirements. However, it asked the lower federal court to rule on what constitutes sufficient government notice.

In May, before the government updated its notification process, the US Supreme Court ruled in an unsigned opinion that the Trump administration hadn’t given immigrants who it said it would deport under the Alien Enemies Act enough time to exercise their due process rights.

At the time, the government had given immigrants about 24 hours’ notice that they would be deported without information about how to contest the deportation. The Supreme Court asked the appellate court to determine how much notice is necessary for the government to uphold immigrants’ constitutional due process rights.

While the case was being decided by the appellate court, the Trump administration updated the document it gives immigrants as notice that they will be deported under the law. Part of the change included giving immigrants seven days to challenge the deportation.

What will likely happen next?

The appellate court’s decision stops Alien Enemies Act deportations in the three states in its jurisdiction: Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Other courts could use the ruling as precedent in their decisions.

The Trump administration can appeal the appellate court ruling either to the full appeals court or to the US Supreme Court. The White House didn’t specify whether it would appeal or to which court.

In the face of uncertainty surrounding the world’s economy, the gold market is booming as investors look for a safe haven for their investments.

Over the past year, gold’s price increased by nearly a third, surpassing $ 3,550 per ounce on Wednesday, making it its highest ever price.

In the midst of a tumultuous geopolitical environment, some analysts anticipate that prices will continue to rise.

Why is gold currently so popular?

According to Tim Waterer, chief market analyst at KCM Trade in Australia, gold has long been preferred by investors during times of uncertainty or upheaval because of how consistently it is valued, especially in relation to stocks.

Gold is typically the go-to asset for traders in these circumstances, according to Waterer, who stated for Al Jazeera, “because the one thing that financial markets hate is uncertainty.”

In the wake of the conflicted international circumstances caused by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and US President Donald Trump’s trade war, gold has historically generated only modest returns, but its price has increased sharply over the past two years.

Investors are also more favorable to gold because it can be held and stored physically, making it a better investment for them.

How does gold get bought by investors?

The main ways to trade gold are two.

The first is by purchasing bullion in the form of bars, ingots, jewelry, or coins.

Trading financial products is a second option.

Investors also invest in exchange-traded funds that monitor the price of gold, as well as contracts to purchase or sell it at a specific price.

Financial products offer institutions the advantage of not having to physically handle or store large amounts of bullion, despite the fact that it is simple to purchase.

Gold’s value is inversely related to the currency because it is typically expressed in US dollars.

Gold typically rises when the dollar falls, and vice versa.

How is Trump causing gold prices to rise?

When Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on a large portion of the world in April, which caused a period of significant uncertainty about the future of global trade.

Prices have increased more recently as a result of Trump’s ongoing attacks on the US Federal Reserve’s independence, which has long been seen above politics.

Trump has repeatedly pressed the central bank to lower interest rates in an effort to encourage economic growth, and he wants the dollar’s value to decline to lower in order to lower US export prices.

According to Kyle Rodda, a senior financial market analyst at Capital.com, either scenario increases the value of gold to investors.

According to Rodda, “gold loses appeal as interest rates rise because I can get more for my money by putting it in an interest-bearing asset like a bank account.”

“But if interest rates go down, I receive fewer of those interest payments, increasing the value of gold,” she says.

Other interest-bearing assets, such as bonds, also have this effect.

Foreign investors who trade in other currencies besides the dollar may also look to purchase more gold as the dollar declines, Rodda said. They will receive more value for their money as the dollar falls.

What is going on abroad?

Other factors have bolstered the case for gold, in addition to the economic jitters there.

Concerned about the worsening state of the public finances in the United Kingdom and Japan, the British sterling and the Japanese yen have fallen recently.

Instability in Japan’s ruling party has also affected the yen.

Because, unlike currencies, gold is seen as a good asset to protect against inflation risks because its supply is more finite in nature and is less prone to price dilution. Waterer argued that the same holds true for other nations, including Turkey and Egypt.

Foreign governments who need to store large amounts of the US dollar made from trade but who are less confident in government bonds as a result of Trump’s policies are starting to use gold, Rodda said.

A nation typically uses these funds to purchase Treasuries so that it can be safely parked and earned an interest rate on them, according to Rodda.