The Judicial branch is in a war against President Trump’s executive. The Trump allies aren’t putting up with it.
Because a Trump ally has taken over the job of the U.S. Supreme Court by dropping this one truth bomb on Washington, D.C.
Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court has been sitting on the sidelines while the Trump administration has been hit with legal battles left and right over the executive orders and decisions the White House have been handing down since January. Many of the most important orders, like those related to illegal immigration deportation, are being gummed up in the courts by activist judges who are playing the role of the usurper against the President and his admin officials.
A top legal analyst at Fox News believes that, on the immigration issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has already made itself clear even though it remains silent. He does the work of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for them by reminding the nation of an important clause of the Alien Enemies Act, which Donald Trump is seeking to use to deport dangerous illegal immigrants.
Trump Administration Defends Deportation Powers in Court Clash
The Trump administration’s legal team squared off against judicial resistance on Monday, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments over a lower court’s attempt to block deportations of dangerous Venezuelan gang members. Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, speaking on Hannity with host Sean Hannity, laid out a compelling case for why the administration’s actions are not only lawful but firmly rooted in historical precedent. Jarrett emphasized that the D.C. Circuit needs to recognize a simple fact: “an alien can be removed without a hearing.”
The showdown stems from President Donald Trump’s decisive move on March 15, when he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target the Tren de Aragua (TdA), a notorious Venezuelan gang. That same day, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary halt on deportations, igniting a fierce legal battle with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The D.C. Circuit took up the DOJ’s request to overturn Boasberg’s ruling, a case that drew sharp commentary from the bench—including one judge’s claim that Nazis received “better treatment” than the 200 migrants deported to El Salvador under the act.
Jarrett didn’t mince words when addressing the charged rhetoric. “Well, first of all, let’s start with today’s hearing. You know, I wasn’t surprised by the inflammatory, incendiary language by an appellate court judge,” he told Hannity. “It was intentional. Anytime you can use the word Nazi and Trump in the same sentence, then it’s a win-win. But the truth is, the president has unchallenged authority under the Alien Enemies Act.” For Jarrett, the judge’s provocative comparison was a cheap shot, overshadowed by the clear legal backing for Trump’s actions.
The Alien Enemies Act, a tool from the nation’s early years, gives the president sweeping power to detain and deport noncitizens deemed a threat during times of conflict or emergency. Jarrett pointed out that the Supreme Court has already settled the matter.
“The Supreme Court has reviewed it, as you pointed out, Sean, with Pam Bondi. The act precludes judicial review: ‘Courts may not pass judgment on the exercise of the president’s discretion,’” he said. “Yet, Boasberg, he doesn’t care. He’s defying the highest court in the land.” The administration’s position, Jarrett argued, stands on solid ground, while Boasberg’s ruling flies in the face of established law.
The dispute escalated when Boasberg expanded his initial order, declaring that “all noncitizens in U.S. custody” were safe from deportation. CBS News reported that during an emergency hearing, the judge verbally suggested deportation flights should return, though he left this out of his written order. That omission sparked confusion over the timeline of the flights, with the DOJ and Boasberg trading barbs over what happened when. Jarrett dismissed the judge’s objections as baseless. “He [Boasberg] claims, ‘Oh, it’s a terrible attack on due process,’” Jarrett said. “No, it’s not, because under this singular law passed by Congress, an alien can be removed without a hearing. Yet, the appellate court was so unbothered by any of that today.”
In Monday’s oral arguments, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett fueled the fire, lamenting that there “were no procedures in place to notify people” before comparing the deportations to Nazi-era policies. But Jarrett countered that the administration’s critics were missing the point—and the law. He noted that one judge on the panel showed promise by questioning “whether the D.C. court itself has jurisdiction.” Jarrett seized on this, asserting, “Guess what? They don’t. The plaintiffs were in Texas when their petition was filed. Under the law, only a federal court in Texas has jurisdiction, not Washington.” For the Trump administration, this jurisdictional snag could be a key to unraveling the opposition’s case.
Jarrett didn’t hide his frustration with the D.C. Circuit’s track record. “Unfortunately, as I say, the exaggerated verbal attacks on Trump, very intentional by the judge, took center stage. I really don’t have confidence in this D.C. court. They got the immunity case wrong,” he said. “That seems to be their habit, getting cases wrong, and the Supreme Court has to clean it up.” His comments nod to a pattern of judicial overreach that the administration has repeatedly faced—and overcome—thanks to higher courts stepping in.
The appellate judges are expected to rule soon, per ABC News, with the decision poised to shape the fate of Trump’s deportation push. Should the D.C. Circuit side against the DOJ, the administration stands ready to take the fight to the Supreme Court, where its allies believe the law and precedent favor the president’s authority. For now, the Trump team remains steadfast, armed with a statute that Jarrett and others see as an airtight defense of executive power in a time of crisis.
The Conservative Column will keep you in the loop in these critical legal battles.
