The Supreme Court upheld the judge’s decision 5-4 on Monday, saying that James Boasberg, a judge in the Washington D.C. District Court, was not qualified to hear the case involving President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to arrest a group of Venezuelan citizens and alleged crew members. Although it’s a step in the right direction, SCOTUS may have put an end to the nation’s judicial system sooner.
Boasberg halted the government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act for 14 days last month. In a 2-1 choice, a federal appeals court after upheld his delay.
Ben Weingarten explained in these sites that” Boasberg effectively usurped the government’s power and responsibility to fight illegal immigration by thwarting his plan and micromanaging his functions to arrest the terrorist illegal aliens of Tren de Aragua.”
The district of confinement is the Supreme Court’s ruling that” core habeas petitions” (questions for a court to determine whether a detained party is being held lawfully ) fall under this umbrella term. The majority of the time ruled that the “venue is illegal in the District of Columbia” because” [t]he prisoners are confined in Texas.”
The Trump presidency can still use the Aliens Enemies Act to arrest Cuban immigrants, as a result of the decision. The majority, however, added that the prisoners are entitled to “notice and an opportunity to issue their removal.”
In a blog on X, The Federalist’s CEO and co-founder Sean Davis stated that “individuals have always had the right to challenge their detention or removal via writ requests in the appropriate areas.” The plaintiffs in this case, according to Davis, “refused to correctly record for habeas alleviation because they wanted to assess shop in D.C. with the sole intention of getting a left-wing criminal insurrectionist like Boasberg to perform their bidding.”
Even though SCOTUS was right in its decision regarding authority, the jury “neverever incorrectly issued an advisory viewpoint” and “basically” said that” Trump denied those removed from expected process,” according to The Federalist’s older legal correspondent Margot Cleveland in a post on X.
” If there was no authority, why is SCOTUS saying what “due approach” is required,” she argued.
Cleveland even noted that Boasberg may continue to have” control over the issue of contempt.” In other words, Boasberg may also decide whether Trump abused his first purchase by disregarding it. Cleveland continues, “SCOTUS’s holding that Boasberg lacked authority will produce a finding of disdain appear even more politically than it already do”
Attorney General Pam Bondi added in a blog on X that the choice” sents a communication to an activist judge” in Washington, D.C. that he does not have the power to sever power of President Trump’s authority to carry out foreign policy and maintain the American people safe.”
However, such a decision is likely to come a little too late. In Trump v. Hawaii in 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that lower courts “do not have the authority to micromanage national security decisions made by the executive branch,” as Justin Evan Smith explained in these pages.
However, Roberts, along with Justices Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberal justices, sagged when the Supreme Court had the chance to slap down unelected inferior court judges who had taken over the executive and micromanaged executive branch functions. The court rejected the Trump administration’s request last month to remove an order from a lower-level, unelected judge that had required the Trump administration to pay$ 2 billion in foreign expenses that it had been requesting to pause. Because of lack of jurisdiction, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that the case was deserving of dismissal or at least a stay, as Jordan Boyd of The Federalist pointed out. However, Roberts, Barrett, and the three liberal justices chose to support” the DC District Court’s overreach and activism.”
More than 100 lawsuits have been filed “aimed at paralyzing the president,” according to Weingarten last month.
According to Weingarten,” the plaintiffs have proven partially successful by bringing those cases to courts ( like that of Boasberg’s D. C. District ), where Democrats have been nominated to stop the administration from carrying out its agenda at a large scale and recklessly,” they wrote.
Notably, there were more federal judges issuing injunctions globally in February alone than there were during the Biden presidency’s first three years.
Roberts, Barrett, and three other justices wasted the opportunity to reign in judicial supremacy sooner. The Trump administration has already lost two-and-a-half valuable months locked up in judicial activist fights, despite the ruling from Monday being a step in the right direction.
Perhaps the ruling from Monday will send a message to other activist judges and court-shoppers looking to kneel over the president.
The Federalist’s Brianna Lyman is a correspondent for elections. With a degree in international political economy, Brianna received her degree from Fordham University. Her work has appeared on RealClearPolitics, Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Follow Brianna on X as @briannalyman2.
