Trump Criticizes Judge Over Venezuelan Deportation Block/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ President Trump slammed a federal judge who halted deportations of Venezuelan immigrants. The administration plans to appeal the ruling, which questioned the legality of deporting alleged gang members without review. Trump’s critics argue the move sets a dangerous precedent.
Trump Deportation Case Quick Looks
- Trump criticized Chief Judge James Boasberg for blocking mass deportations.
- Boasberg ruled Venezuelans deserve a chance to challenge gang labels.
- Deportations were based on the Alien Enemies Act, dating back to 1798.
- Trump declared Tren de Aragua a foreign threat under wartime authority.
- The administration had already launched flights to El Salvador.
- Boasberg temporarily halted deportations; Trump seeks reversal on appeal.
- DOJ argues judge overstepped executive authority on national security.
- Civil rights groups say unchecked power could lead to abuses.
- Trump called for Boasberg’s disbarment and reposted critical media.
- Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts warned against judicial impeachment threats.
Trump Criticizes Judge Over Venezuelan Deportation Block
Deep Look
President Donald Trump intensified his attacks on the federal judiciary Monday, targeting Chief Judge James Boasberg just hours before the administration’s appeal in a controversial deportation case involving Venezuelan immigrants. At the center of the dispute is Boasberg’s ruling that temporarily blocked the mass deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador based on their alleged ties to a violent gang.
In a midnight social media post, Trump called for Boasberg to be disbarred, sharing an article highlighting the judge’s attendance at a legal conference that reportedly featured speakers critical of the Trump administration. The post comes as the Justice Department prepares to argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, seeking to overturn Boasberg’s ruling.
The judge, who refused to rescind his temporary restraining order, emphasized the need for due process, stating that deportees must be allowed to challenge their classification as members of the Tren de Aragua, a notorious transnational criminal gang.
“There is a strong public interest in preventing the mistaken deportation of people based on categories they have no right to challenge,” Boasberg wrote, reinforcing the importance of legal safeguards even in matters of national security.
The deportation campaign relies on the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used law from the late 18th century, previously invoked during World War II. Trump revived the law by issuing a proclamation branding the Tren de Aragua as a hostile foreign force, granting the executive branch sweeping authority to remove suspected individuals without standard immigration court proceedings.
On March 15, several flights carrying deportees were already en route to El Salvador when Boasberg issued his emergency ruling. Though the judge ordered the planes to return, they reportedly completed their routes. The administration later claimed that only written orders are binding and argued that oral instructions from the bench held no legal weight in this context.
Government lawyers described Boasberg’s decision as an “unprecedented intrusion” into presidential powers, warning that it obstructs efforts to remove noncitizens deemed a threat. “Even if reviewable, the President’s action is lawful and based upon a long history of using war authorities,” the DOJ stated in its legal filings.
“If the President can designate any group as enemy aliens under the Act, and that designation is unreviewable, then there is no limit on who can be sent to a Salvadoran prison,” they argued.
The debate escalated further when Trump and Republican allies floated the idea of impeaching Judge Boasberg—who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. In response, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public rebuke, emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate remedy for disagreements over judicial decisions.
As the case heads to the appeals court, it represents a critical test of the limits of executive power, the authority of wartime statutes, and the role of judicial oversight in safeguarding civil liberties during politically charged times.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.