Staff Reports
In a stunning display of judicial overreach, Judge James Boasberg has inserted himself into the executive branch yet again, this time thwarting the Trump administration’s attempts to utilize the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. A recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Boasberg’s order, which puts the brakes on the administration’s ability to deport members of Tren de Aragua, a gang classified as a foreign terror group. Naturally, this has conservative heads shaking as they realize yet again that the courts are playing fast and loose with national security.
In a choice that can only be described as baffling to those who believe in a strong border, a split decision from the appeals court rejected a request to lift the injunction imposed by Boasberg. The Justice Department pointed out that this order was not only an egregious intrusion but also a blatant challenge to presidential authority over national security. Yet, here we are—watching judges tie the hands of the Commander in Chief while they sip lattes in their plush robes.
The case has gained notoriety as it revolves around deporting dangerous individuals who the administration argues are military threats posing as migrants. However, judges Karen Henderson and Patricia Millett appeared more interested in dissecting the legal technicalities than addressing the very real border crisis that the Trump administration is trying to manage. It’s worth noting that Henderson, a Bush appointee, mentioned that an invasion is fundamentally a military affair—not something to be diluted into mere migration discussions. One can only imagine how that sentiment is received in a courtroom filled with judicial activists.
Rogue Judge Can Block Trump Using Alien Enemies Act for Speedy Deportations of Terrorists https://t.co/ajmNNv3D9C
— Woodrow Williams (@Woodrow17165268) March 27, 2025
Adding to the absurdity, Boasberg has demanded classified details about deportation flights. It’s almost like he’s running the show instead of just interpreting the law. Fortunately, Attorney General Pam Bondi put her foot down on that nonsense, invoking state secrets provisions. This situation illustrates how judges can sometimes dictate policy and, in this case, jeopardize the country’s safety—all while wearing black robes that might as well come with a “Bureaucratic Hero” sticker.
While the courts throw roadblocks in front of the Trump administration, there have been some wins too. Judge Theodore Chuang recently ruled against the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency, indicating that actions taken against the U.S. Agency for International Development may not be constitutional. It’s a reminder that some judges are still acknowledging checks and balances, even if they seem to take one step forward and two steps back.
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrated that not all judicial bodies are intent on undermining Trump. After the administration raised alarms about a judge’s directive to admit refugees, the Ninth Circuit issued a stay, allowing the White House to pause admissions for newcomers who applied after January 20. If only other judges took a cue from this, perhaps America could get back to the real business of keeping its citizens safe and sound.
