Despite a national court’s attempt to stop the process, President Donald Trump continued deportation planes of illegal immigrants, including users of the aggressive Tren de Aragua group.
An appointment of Obama, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, issued an order barring the presidency from deporting people to El Salvador. The White House referred to the selection as “lawless” and claimed that the purchase was unimportant because the planes had already left and flown into foreign countries. It has temporarily stopped farther for flights.
Trump’s disobedience is already being portrayed as an assault on the rule of law. However, the real abuse is coming from the judges itself. Judges have ruled for too much that their powers are endless and that elected officials must follow their orders no matter how much they go against the Constitution. A clear example of a court trying to bypass a fundamental executive power in the name of politicians is the ruling of Bosberg, which is not judicial evaluation but criminal law.
The court has remained largely untouchable in American culture for decades, elevating it above the elected branches of government. Courts have been encouraged by this deference to grow their authority, transforming the judges from legal interpreters to de facto leaders in black robes. Courts are given the power to evaluate executive actions under the Constitution and the Constitution, but not to dictate how the government is run. When judges object to the proper training of executive energy, they undermine democracy rather than protect it.
Boasberg’s decision is just the latest instance of a judge utilizing his own political interests to influence professional decisions. The administrative unit has a fundamental role in the Constitution because it enforces immigration laws. The president is able to oversee international relations and strong deportations under both the laws of the Constitution and the Law. A judge in a district judge does no.
Pattern of Overreach in the Judicial System
This style of judicial overreach is now commonplace. Before any complete constitutional arguments could even be made, a federal judge recently blocked Trump’s professional order clarifying heritage membership. Another halted the administration’s plan to end federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion ( DEI ) programs, giving ideology precedence over executive power. Court decisions have even been interpreted as if they needed administrative approval in Trump’s attempts to reform the provincial workforce. What stage does administrative rule become a result of judicial review?
This issue is not just about these problems or professional strength; rather, it is about the judiciary’s overall politicization. He no longer serves as a natural arbitrator when a judge prevents a plan because he privately opposes it rather than because it violates the Constitution. Judge Ana Reyes used a hearing on Trump’s military preparation executive order to insult the government’s legal claims and admonish a Department of Justice defendant’s religious beliefs, which is exactly what Judge Reyes did. She expressed her scorn for the government’s policy positions in open court by refusing to engage in lawful analysis. Judges like Reyes and Boasberg are rewriting the rules instead of interpreting it.
Yet the Supreme Court has acknowledged the risks of this excessive judicial authority. In Trump v. Hawaii ( 2018 ), Chief Justice John Roberts warned lower courts that they lack the authority to rig executive orders regarding national security. Lower courts are still ignoring that alert and issuing global injunctions based on political dissatisfaction rather than constitutional law.
The media may portray Trump’s choice to ignore Boasberg’s decision as irresponsible, violent, or authoritarian. However, allowing the court to continue to occupy positions that it does not possess is what is really foolish. Leaders have used this as a law to protest judicial overreach. Abraham Lincoln revoked a Supreme Court order in 1861 when Roger Taney, the president’s chief justice, attempted to halt his habeas corpus expulsion during the Civil War. Andrew Jackson reportedly argued that the executive branch, no the judiciary, was in charge of enforcing a Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia, and that the executive branch was in charge of enforcement. Both of those choices drew controversy. Both were required.
Trump’s disobedience of Boasberg is a needed adjustment, far from an assault on the rule of law. A judge’s authority to enforce their decisions is certainly provided by the Constitution. When it immediately interferes with a valid administrative work, the executive branch is hardly bound by a lower court’s democratic decision. An executive who imposes the laws against the wishes of a judge is not the real threat to politics. It is a court that thinks it alone has the authority to determine what the rules is.
What meaningful authority does the executive branch really have if unelected judges may overrule national security decisions, halt immigration enforcement, and dictate plan based on their own ideology? Boasberg’s decision is a warning signal.
Not from the professional tree, but from a court that is no longer respects its own limits, this is the true dictatorship that is sweeping into the United States. Each branch of government may operate within its own domain, with executives leading, politicians enacting laws, and courts interpreting the rules to protect our democracy. The professional may provide a needed check when a determine oversteps his bounds, as Boasberg did this month.
Justin Evan Smith writes for Young Voices and serves as a lawyer and firm strategist. Following him on Twitter at @thejustinevan.
