Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/20/2025 9:35:44 AM PDT by Red Badger
It’s a tale fit for a thriller novel or action movie: planes on the tarmac waiting to take members of a violent gang to a foreign prison, lawyers rushing to the courthouse to stop them, presidential proclamations, and a judge on a mission to impose his own brand of justice. But this drama isn’t made up—it’s very real, and it’s playing out right now in Washington, D.C.
Leading the cast is President Donald Trump, who wants to rid the country of a violent gang. The legal backstory for his actions has three parts.
The first is the Constitution, which the Supreme Court has long held gives the president authority over matters involving international relations that exceeds that permitted in domestic matters.
The second piece is the Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798. It authorizes the president to apprehend and remove the natives, citizens, or subjects of a hostile foreign government if that government attempts or threatens an “invasion or predatory incursion” against the U.S.
Third, the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the secretary of state to designate as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, or FTOs, groups that engage in terrorist activity and threaten the safety of Americans or the United States.
With that in mind, let’s turn to the unfolding drama.
On Feb. 20, the State Department designated eight transnational gangs and cartels as FTOs, including Tren de Aragua, or TdA, a criminal organization that began as a prison gang in Venezuela in 2010.
On Mar. 14, Trump made the proclamation required by the Alien Enemies Act, emphasizing TdA’s connection with Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his “regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise.” TdA, the proclamation explained, “commits brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking.”
The Trump administration moved quickly to act on this proclamation, apprehending dozens of suspected TdA members and detaining them at a facility in Texas. The plan was to deport them on Mar. 15 and transfer physical custody to officials in El Salvador who had agreed to house them.
Enter the lawyers, who filed a lawsuit at 1:12 a.m. on Mar. 15 to block the removal of any suspected TdA members.
They asked for two things from Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who had been assigned the case. They wanted a writ of habeas corpus releasing the five detainee plaintiffs. More broadly, they sought the certification of a class (for the purpose of maintaining the lawsuit as a class action) consisting of all individuals, anywhere in the country, covered under the proclamation—and an order protecting all such individuals from removal.
At 9:40 a.m., Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order barring removal of the five named plaintiffs, and they remained in the country. But here’s where the drama heats up.
Later that day, between 5:25 and 5:45 p.m., two flights with a total of 137 suspected TdA members left Texas, bound first for Honduras and then El Salvador. At 7:25 p.m., Boasberg certified a class of all individuals covered by the proclamation and issued a TRO prohibiting the government from “removing” them for 14 days. On Mar. 28, he extended that order for another 14 days.
The Supreme Court stepped in on Apr. 7, vacating both of Boasberg’s Mar. 15 TROs. A writ of habeas corpus, the court said, must be sought in the jurisdiction where the plaintiff is being detained. In this case, that would be Texas.
The real fireworks were over the meaning of just one word in Boasberg’s second TRO: “removing.”
The government said that “removing” meant expelling the detainees from U.S. territory, which occurred before Boasberg issued his TRO. Boasberg, however, claimed that “removing” meant actually relinquishing custody to a foreign sovereign, which did not occur until after his order had been issued. Under Boasberg’s reading, the government had violated his TRO.
But he wasn’t finished. On Apr. 16, he issued yet another order claiming probable cause for criminal contempt for the government’s “willful disobedience” of the TRO. Boasberg’s shocking ultimatum to the executive branch was this: Return the deportees to U.S. soil or identify the officials who ordered the deportation so they could be prosecuted. He set a hard deadline of Apr. 23.
But wait—hadn’t the Supreme Court already vacate Boasberg’s TRO? How can someone disobey an order that, in effect, Boasberg had no authority to issue?
Boasberg surely knew what was coming because his contempt order came with an opinion accusing the Supreme Court of enabling all sorts of horrors: secretly loading people onto planes, keeping many in the dark about their destination, and racing to “spirit them away before they could invoke their due-process rights.” But a selective repetition of some facts is no substitute for a legal argument.
For that, the government turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has appellate authority over Boasberg. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao sided with the government, vacating Boasberg’s contempt order, while Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented.
Beyond that result, however, separate opinions by Katsas and Rao explained how far Boasberg had strayed from his role as a judge in his decisions.
Rao, for example, forcefully outlined how Boasberg, not Trump, had exceeded his authority in this drama. Boasberg, Rao wrote, was acting less like a district judge and more like a foreign diplomat by attempting to influence how the Trump administration conducted foreign affairs. Simply put, “[t]he district court’s order intrudes upon the powers committed to the Executive Branch.”
Rao wasn’t finished.
“This case is highly unusual, and I have found no other like it, perhaps because no district court has threatened criminal contempt against Executive Branch officials as a backdoor to coercing compliance with an order that has been vacated by the Supreme Court.” She described Boasberg’s ultimatum of returning migrants or naming officials as “untenable” and described the order as “coercive.”
Under normal circumstances, an appeals court’s disagreement with a lower court usually means a reversal. However, this high-stakes legal drama can only be described as a series of judicial smackdowns. A federal judge attempting to manipulate how the president exercises power the Constitution gives only to him requires a special kind of arrogance.
But this saga may not be over. Time will tell if Boasberg comes to his senses, gets off his high-horse, and stays in his judicial lane where he belongs.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Review
Hoping Boasberg will “stay in his judicial lane” is akin to hoping that the Drive-By Media will have some integrity.
I believe that there will soon be a new diagnosis category: Boasbergers Syndrome.
The best treatment for Boasbergers Syndrome is four years of undergraduate study at Hillsdale College.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOLOL!
Well said!!!
Isn’t Chief Justice Roberts tasked with policing rogue lower judges?
Or not...?
Judge Boasberg has a skewed sense of boundaries. The defendants were NOT in his area of jurisdiction, and his ego got in the way of his judicial responsibilities. The rulings, such as they were, are based in opinion and not in any interpretation of the Constitution or respect for long-established precedent.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Dismiss, disbar, and detain James Emanuel Boasberg for grand jury inquiry as to the kinds and extent of criminal activity he may have committed, under color of judicial overreach.
I disagree. Boasberg doesn't belong in any judicial lane, he belongs in a cell.
“Time will tell if Boasberg comes to his senses, gets off his high-horse, and stays in his judicial lane where he belongs.”
He should have been immediately removed and disbared on his fist fiasco.
But now, it’s his “thing” his signature dance move.
He has to know he is toast.
But, he will keep doing it as long as they don’t yank him.
he probably assumes he’ll keep doing it until a Dem admin is in place and will be immediately elevated to SCOTUS for his “truth to power! Stances”
Seems blasphemous that his middle name means, “God with us”. Someone’s with him — but it ain’t God.
I believe that's the same Justice Roberts who audits the FISA court that repeatedly green lighted the Dims' deep state to spy on Trump.
Al Capone’s middle name was Gabriel......... “God is my strength” or “strong man of God”............
That’s my feeling, too. With a proper, strong Chief Justice all the District Court malfeasance would have been quickly reined in, one way or another.
Another one to thank W Bush for.
Thank you Justice Rao for providing Boasburg with some clarity. Kindly suggest he also be directed to consider retirement options.
In the America I grew up in judges have no powers to enforce their decisions.
So if the enforcement agency decides to ignore the judge.
they are impotent.
I’d ignore the asshole liberal Democrat judge!
Media can go apeshiite, they aren’t any different, so ignore them also!
Trump is doing the business of America.
He is doing it better than many recent presidents.
Lets rock and roll!!!!!
bump
Good question.
I was checking that pesky constitution thingie and there it was, the house of Representatives has authority over the judiciary branch.
Why doesn’t the house do anything about this?
Answer....
They are all deep state, and don’t actually represent the people that elected them.
Stop voting for the deep state!!!
His “best treatment” is to deport him to Angola.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.