Posted on 03/28/2025 9:58:36 AM PDT by Signalman
Legal expert Jonathan Turley delivered encouraging news for the Trump administration this week, stating that the Supreme Court is likely to side with President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport over 200 members of the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Agua. Speaking on America’s Newsroom with Bill Hemmer, Turley said the legal debate surrounding the administration’s decision is “controversial” but that the courts are fully equipped to resolve it.
“There are certainly strong arguments for the administration to make here,” Turley began. “I think that we have to be honest that there are good faith arguments on both sides. This is a controversial law being used in a new way and there are legitimate questions as to the meaning of some of these terms.”
The legal dust-up began after Trump invoked the centuries-old law in mid-March, allowing for the rapid deportation of criminal non-citizens considered national security threats. Tren de Agua, which has been linked to a wave of criminal activity, became the first target.
But after a federal judge blocked the deportations and an appeals court upheld the decision, Trump’s legal team signaled it would take the fight to the Supreme Court. Turley says that’s exactly where the battle belongs.
“How much of it is actually reviewable? That’s going to be resolved by the Supreme Court, not by lower court judges,” Turley said. “And people need to trust our system here. We have the greatest legal system on Earth. It will work through these problems, and I think it’s going to work through them.”
He added that the growing number of nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges undermines executive authority—a concern echoed by former Attorney General Bill Barr earlier in the week.
“These district court judges are trying to usurp the responsibility of the president in the national security area,” Barr warned. “They’re trying to reduce all decisions to these trial-like hearings which essentially gives the judge the power to overrule and second-guess the executive.”
There have been significant differences in how lower courts have treated the Trump administration compared to previous presidents. While President Biden faced 14 injunctions during his term, President Obama saw 12, and President Bush had just 6. In contrast, the first Trump administration was hit with 64 injunctions. Remarkably, just 64 days into the current term, the count has already climbed to 15.
“It’s like having a car where every passenger is grabbing the emergency brake. It’s pretty hard to drive that car,” Turley said. “And what you have here are judges that are imposing national injunctions, which the Supreme Court—including liberals like Justice Kagan—have objected to. She said, ‘This is madness.’”
“I think the Trump administration is likely to win,” Turley added. “I also think the Trump administration is likely to prevail in most of these cases. I think that federal judges have overextended themselves. I think they have intruded into areas of Article II or presidential authority.”
As the case heads toward the nation’s highest court, the legal debate hinges on whether non-citizens are entitled to full due process rights during deportation proceedings.
“The Supreme Court has previously said that there are due process rights that adhere to even non-citizens within the country,” Turley said. “The question is: how much of a hearing? What do you need to have in order to deport individuals? The administration would like to use this law to sort of circumvent—or short-circuit—at least that process. That’s a novel use of the law.”
The courts are corrupt and they are after Donald Trump. Anyone who thinks otherwise is going to be disappointed. The only way Trump can back them off is if he can make them fear him. They don’t fear him at the moment.
Hope and PRAY that he is right!
And that SCOTUS has the intestinal fortitude to keep the lower courts in their lane!
Turley is one of the best legal commentators in the country and it would be good to see more of him.
The Five is now an unwatchable mess. Lately, we have often gone to Newsmax which has a surprisingly good evening line up (Finnerty, Kelly, et al).
The over-talking is beyond annoying, Tarkovsky has ever been a screachy (autistic spectrum) yenta, Perino is ok. The ‘regular guys’ truck and trade in school boy puerilities and Watters (and Gutfeld) has gotten well, as you say, ‘smug’.
Turley, Kennedy, Ford, maybe Dana and some good guest would be a nice line-up.
I fully agree with your comment as to Tarlov et al, as well as other ideas. Newsmax was really clunky to start but both their production and line up have nicely improved.
As a side note, if the Dems were smart they’d take another look at Ford. He’d be a formidable presidential candidate (though was there some dirty laundry?).
Meanwhile, Fox prime time ‘ain’t ready for …’.
Ford is the only Dem I know who would have even a chance with sober people. In which case we should be thankful there are so many lefty loons acting deranged.
I agree about Ford who, some 20 years ago seemed to be being groomed as a presidential candidate by the Clinton faction … I vaguely recall some sort of dust up that maybe shunted him aside.
Meanwhile, AOC-Crockett in 2028 !!!
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.