A federal judge’s decision to block President Donald Trump’s deportation order aimed at Venezuelan gang members living in the U.S. illegally has sparked outrage among conservatives, with legal experts expressing concerns about a troubling expansion of judicial authority.

The backlash follows U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s ruling last week, in which he issued a temporary restraining order preventing Trump from utilizing the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals he has classified as members of a terrorist organization.

The ruling has drawn intense criticism, with some calling for Boasberg’s impeachment. Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett characterized the decision as a blatant disregard for Supreme Court precedent.

“What’s particularly concerning about Boasberg’s restraining order is that he is defying the Supreme Court, which previously reviewed President Harry Truman’s use of the Alien Enemies Act after World War II,” Jarrett explained during a segment on the network. “The Supreme Court affirmed that not only is the act constitutional, but it is also not subject to judicial review by any judge.”

Jarrett elaborated, stating, “When a president invokes this act, no judge or court can intervene—not even the Supreme Court—because Congress has granted the president exclusive authority to make decisions regarding national security and foreign policy.” He emphasized that Boasberg, as a lower court judge, is obligated to adhere to the rulings of the Supreme Court and should refrain from intervening.

In a column published online last week, Jarrett pointed out that a prior Supreme Court ruling confirmed that the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) allows a president to order the arrest and removal of “alien enemies” without a court hearing during times of declared war or in response to any “predatory incursion” against the United States.

He noted that a “predatory incursion” is broadly defined as entry into the U.S. for purposes contrary to the nation’s interests or laws, granting the president significant latitude in fulfilling his duty to protect the safety and security of citizens.

Jarrett referenced the 1948 Supreme Court decision that upheld Truman’s use of the AEA, affirming its constitutionality and stating that a president’s decision under the act “precludes judicial review of the removal order.” This means that judges cannot second-guess the president’s actions. The court explained that the nature of the president’s power to remove enemy aliens inherently rejects the idea that courts can evaluate the exercise of that discretion.

The Supreme Court’s ruling embraced the “political question doctrine,” which asserts that federal courts should not intervene in presidential decisions that are inherently political, such as foreign affairs and national security. For instance, judges do not have the authority to halt drone strikes or disrupt intelligence operations.

“President Trump is using every legal tool available to remove enemy aliens who pose a constant threat,” Jarrett continued, noting that the American public largely supports mass deportations of illegal immigrants, particularly those identified as criminal or terrorist threats.

He further emphasized that Congress recognized such dangers over two centuries ago, which is why it enacted a broad law granting the president sole authority to evict enemy aliens. Jarrett pointed out that the Supreme Court upheld this statute, stating, “This Alien Enemy Act has remained the law of the land, virtually unchanged since 1798.”

In conclusion, Jarrett asserted, “Lower court judges are obligated to follow Supreme Court precedent. Based on that alone, Judge Boasberg’s hasty ruling is incorrect as a matter of law.”