Rethinking Restrictions on Individual Rights for the Sake of National Security : Focusing the case of J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump
- 주제어 (키워드) national security , individual rights , restriction , Alien Enemies Act , U.S. President , President Trump , Tren de Aragua , deportation , executive order
- 발행기관 서강대학교 일반대학원
- 지도교수 왕상한
- 발행년도 2025
- 학위수여년월 2025. 8
- 학위명 박사
- 학과 및 전공 일반대학원 글로벌법무학협동과정
- 실제 URI http://www.dcollection.net/handler/sogang/000000082083
- UCI I804:11029-000000082083
- 본문언어 한국어
- 저작권 서강대학교 논문은 저작권 보호를 받습니다.
초록 (요약문)
This dissertation examines President Donald J. Trump's executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act to detain and deport Venezuelan nationals within the United States. The order alleges the detainees' association with a South American criminal organization, Tren de Aragua. The Trump Administration issued the executive order during peacetime. The order was made absent any congressional declaration of war, raising serious concerns regarding the abuse of presidential authority and infringement of individual rights in the name of national security. The Alien Enemies Act, originally enacted in 1798 and historically applied only during wartime, had not been substantively used since World War II. Its revival in this case—without meeting its traditional prerequisites, such as the existence of a hostile nation or declared armed conflict by the Congress—prompted constitutional and human rights challenges. The plaintiffs in J.G.G., denied due process of law, sought emergency judicial relief. Although a district court issued a temporary restraining order halting deportations, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately vacated it on procedural grounds, effectively denying judicial review. This study traces the historical use of the Alien Enemies Act and analyzes the legal arguments presented in J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump, highlighting the structural and institutional failures revealed by the case. It proposes five legislative reforms: (1) guarantee of judicial review before deportation; (2) clear burden of proof on the executive; (3) mandatory judicial scrutiny regardless of jurisdictional defenses; (4) modern reinterpretation of statutory terms such as “enemy” and “war”; and (5) restrictions on unilateral executive actions absent judicial oversight. The J.G.G. case underscores the fragility of individual rights when legal safeguards are bypassed. This dissertation argues that no assertion of national security can justify the deprivation of constitutional rights without due process and judicial review. It calls for legislative reform to prevent future abuses of executive power and to ensure the law remains a protector—not a violator—of human dignity.
more목차
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
(1) Purpose and Background of Dissertation 1
(2) Problem Statement 6
(3) Research Questions 11
(4) Research Methodology and Structure 12
Chapter 2. Background and Conditions for the Invocation of the Alien
Enemies Act and Review of the Legal Justification of the Trump
Administration’s Proclamation 14
(1) Background of the Enactment of the Alien Enemies Act 15
(2) Conditions for the Invocation of the Alien Enemies and Review of the Legal
Justification 19
(3) Cases of Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, Concerns and Criticism 22
(a) Lockington v. Smith (First Application Case, War of 1812) 23
(b) De Lacey v. United States (Second Application Case, WWI) 27
(c) Ludecke v. Watkins (Third Application Case, WWII) 30
(4) Trump Administration’s Proclamation: “Invocation of the Alien Enemies
Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua” 39
(5) Review of the Procedural Legitimacy of the Trump Administration’s
Proclamation 45
(6) Legal Errors and Risks of the Trump Administration’s Proclamation 48
(a) Differences in Definitions Between “Nation” and “Criminal
Organization” 50
(b) Legal Distinction Between “Crime” and “War” 54
(c) Legal Vacuum Regarding Deportation Destinations 57
(d) Risks of Exceeding Legal Authority 60
(7) Infringement of and Concerns Regarding Individual Rights 62
(8) Conclusion 64
Chapter 3. Legal Case Analysis and Critical Review of J.G.G. v. Donald J.
Trump 67
(1) Overview of the Cases and Litigation Background 69
(2) Arguments of the Plaintiffs in the J.G.G. v. Donald. J. Trump 71
(3) Arguments of the Defendant in J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump and Critical
Review of Implied Precedents 73
(a) Ludecke v. Watkins 76
(b) Munaf v. Geren 78
(c) Preiser v. Rodriguez 81
(4) District Court’s Ruling: Approval of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
in Emergency Circumstances 84
(5) Court of Appeals’ Ruling: Affirmation of TRO and Emphasis on Individual
Rights 90
(6) The U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling: Dismissal Based on Lack of
Jurisdiction 95
(7) Analysis of Cited Precedents by the U.S. Supreme Court and Their
Limitations 101
(a) Heikkila v. Barber 103
(b) Heck v. Humphrey 109
(c) In re Bonner 113
(d) Peyton v. Rowe 117
(8) Comparative Analysis of the Three Judicial Decisions 119
(9) Analysis of Precedents That Should Have Been More Appropriately
Considered in the Present Case 124
(a) Ex parte Milligan 126
(b) Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 136
(c) Skinner v. Switzer 139
(d) Brownell v. We Shung 142
(10) The Legal and Social Implications of the J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump 145
(11) Conclusion 149
Chapter 4. Legal Framework and Future Challenges in Balancing National
Security and Individual Rights 152
(1) Limits of Presidential Power and the Need for Judicial Oversight 155
(2) Finding the Balance Between National Security and Individual Rights 159
(3) Legislative Proposals for the Alien Enemies Act 165
(4) Proposed Legislative Draft for Amending the Alien Enemies Act 176
(a) Guarantee of Fundamental Judicial Procedures 177
(b) Burden of Proof for the Exercise of Presidential Authority 181
(c) Responsibility of the Supreme Court 185
(d) Reconstruction of Legal Terms 187
(e) Restriction on the Unilateral Actions by the President 189
(5) Conclusion 193
Chapter 5. Conclusion 195
BIBLIOGRAPHY 201
