A recent decision by a federal judge to halt President Donald Trump’s deportation directive—targeting Venezuelan gang members residing illegally in the United States—has sparked strong backlash from conservative circles. Legal analysts have raised concerns that the ruling represents a troubling overreach of judicial authority.
The controversy centers around U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s decision last week to issue a temporary restraining order. This order blocks Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport individuals he has labeled as part of a terrorist organization.
The ruling has drawn intense criticism, with some commentators even calling for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment. Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett described the decision as a clear violation of established Supreme Court precedent.
“What makes Boasberg’s ruling so disturbing is that it directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s stance on this issue, particularly regarding President Harry Truman’s use of the Alien Enemies Act after World War II,” Jarrett stated in a recent network appearance. “The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act and made it clear that such presidential actions are not subject to judicial review.”
Jarrett emphasized that when a president invokes the AEA, the decision is considered a political one—entirely within the president’s authority and beyond the reach of the courts, including the Supreme Court itself.
“Congress granted the president exclusive powers in matters of national security and foreign affairs under the AEA,” Jarrett continued. “As a lower court judge, Boasberg is obligated to respect Supreme Court precedent and refrain from interference. Yet, he appears to be disregarding that obligation entirely.”
In an opinion column published online last week, Jarrett elaborated that the Supreme Court has already confirmed the Act’s constitutionality and determined that federal courts lack jurisdiction to intervene once the president invokes it.
He explained that the Alien Enemies Act allows the president to order the detention and removal of “alien enemies” without a court hearing during times of declared war or when the U.S. faces any “predatory incursion”—a term broadly interpreted to include any unauthorized entry with hostile or unlawful intent.
“This language grants the president wide discretion in fulfilling his primary responsibility: ensuring the safety and security of American citizens,” Jarrett wrote.
He further pointed to the landmark 1948 Supreme Court case Ludecke v. Watkins (33 U.S. 160), in which the justices upheld President Truman’s application of the AEA and affirmed the law’s constitutionality. Crucially, the Court concluded that decisions made by the president under the Act are not subject to judicial review.
In essence, Jarrett noted, “The judiciary has no authority to question the president’s decision under the AEA. The Court explicitly stated that the president’s power to deport enemy aliens is inherently immune from judicial oversight.”
