A federal judge’s ruling to block President Donald Trump’s deportation order targeting Venezuelan gang members in the country illegally has ignited fury among conservatives, with legal experts warning it marks an alarming expansion of judicial power.
The criticism comes following U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s ruling last week in which he issued a temporary restraining order to stop Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members he has designated a terrorist organization.
The ruling has faced fierce criticism, with some calling for Boasberg’s impeachment, while Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett described the action as a blatant disregard for Supreme Court precedent.
“What’s so troubling about Boasberg’s restraining order is that he is defying the Supreme Court, which reviewed Harry Truman’s use of the Alien Enemies Act after World War II ended,” Jarrett explained during a network segment earlier this week. “The high court said that not only is the act constitutional under the law of the land, it is not subject to judicial review by any judge.”
“So when a president invokes it, no judge, no court can ever intervene—not even the Supreme Court—because Congress gave the president the exclusive power that is purely political to make decisions on national security and foreign policy,” Jarrett further explained. “Boasberg is duty-bound, as a lower court judge, to follow the ruling of the highest court—the Supreme Court—and butt out. And yet, he is brazenly ignoring Supreme Court precedent.”
Jarrett noted in a column posted online last week that a previous Supreme Court ruling found that not only is the Act constitutional, but that federal courts have no authority to intervene when a president invokes it.
“The AEA permits a president to order the arrest and removal without a court hearing of ‘alien enemies’ whenever there is a declared war or any ‘predatory incursion’ perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the United States,” Jarrett wrote.
“A predatory incursion is broadly defined as entry into the U.S. for purposes that are contrary to the nation’s interests or laws. The language gives a president broad latitude in his core duty to protect the safety and security of the citizenry,” he noted
