SCOTUS Ruling In Deportation Case Is Too Little Too Late

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday that Washington D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case involving President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport a group of Venezuelan nationals and alleged gang members. While it’s a step in the right direction, SCOTUS should have reigned Boasberg in a lot sooner to end the judicial tyranny seeking to control the nation.

Boasberg blocked the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act last month for 14 days. A federal appeals court later upheld his pause in a 2-1 decision.

“Boasberg effectively usurped the president’s power and mandate to combat illegal immigration by thwarting his policy and micromanaging his operations to deport the terrorist illegal aliens of Tren de Aragua,” Ben Weingarten explained in these pages.

The Supreme Court ruled that for “core habeas petitions” (requests for a court to review whether a detained party is being held lawfully), the “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” The majority held that because “[t]he detainees are confined in Texas,” the “venue is improper in the District of Columbia.”

The ruling means that the Trump administration can, for now, continue using the Aliens Enemies Act to deport the Venezuelan nationals. However, the majority also held that the detainees are entitled to due process, including “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

The Federalist’s CEO and co-founder Sean Davis explained in a post on X that “individuals have always had the right to challenge their detention/removal via habeas petitions in the proper jurisdictions.” However, Davis continued, “the plaintiffs in this case refused to properly file for habeas relief because they wanted to judge shop in D.C. for the sole purpose of getting a left-wing judicial insurrectionist like Boasberg to do their bidding.”

The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland said in a post on X that, even though SCOTUS was correct regarding jurisdiction, the court “nonetheless improperly issued an advisory opinion” and “basically” said that “Trump denied those removed of due process.”

“IF there was no jurisdiction … why is SCOTUS saying what ‘due process’ is required,” she posited.

Cleveland also noted that Boasberg will still maintain “jurisdiction over the issue of contempt.” In other words, Boasberg could still rule over proceedings regarding whether Trump violated his initial order by ignoring it. However, Cleveland continues, “SCOTUS’ holding that Boasberg lacked jurisdiction will make a finding of contempt appear even more political than it already would.”

Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on X that the decision sends a message to an “activist judge” in Washington, D.C. that he does “not have the jurisdiction to seize control of President Trump’s authority to conduct foreign policy and keep the American people safe.”

But such a ruling likely comes a bit too late. As explained by Justin Evan Smith in these pages, it was Chief Justice John Roberts who warned in Trump v. Hawaii in 2018 that lower courts “do not have the authority to micromanage national security decisions made by the executive [branch].”

Yet when the opportunity came for the Supreme Court to slap down unelected inferior court judges usurping the authority of the executive and micromanaging executive branch functions, Roberts, alongside Justices Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberal justices, buckled. Last month, the court denied the Trump administration’s request to remove an order from a lower-level, unelected judge that forced the Trump administration to pay $2 billion in foreign expenditures it sought to pause. As explained by The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd, “[Justice Samuel] Alito deemed the case worthy of being thrown out or at least stayed due to lack of jurisdiction.” But Roberts, Barrett, and the three liberal justices instead affirmed “the DC District Court’s overreach and activism.”

As Weingarten noted last month, more than 100 lawsuits have been filed “aimed at paralyzing the president.”

“The plaintiffs have proven partially successful by bringing those cases to courts (like that of Boasberg’s D.C. District) populated with Democrat nominees who have prohibited the administration from implementing its agenda at mass scale and with reckless abandon,” Weingarten wrote.

Notably, there were more universal injunctions issued by federal judges in February alone than there were in the entire first three years of the Biden presidency.

The court could have reigned in judicial supremacy sooner — but Roberts, Barrett, and three other justices squandered it. While Monday’s ruling is a step in the right direction, the Trump administration has already lost two-and-a-half valuable months tied up in judicial activist fights.

Perhaps Monday’s ruling will send a message to other activist judges and court-shoppers looking to kneecap the president.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2