the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua which has been terrorizing cities across the country—and then the administration sent at least one planeload of members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” back to their country of origin.

It didn’t take long for Obama appointed Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to kneecap the effort. Not only did he issue a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of any Venezuelans, but he also ordered that the plane (or planes; it’s unclear) return the gangsters to the U.S.

The actions against the president began even before he signed the order. Mind-boggling:

Hours before the proclamation was signed, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, claiming it could be used to deport any Venezuelan in the country, regardless of whether they are a member of TdA.

At a hearing Saturday afternoon, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelans, who had already been in federal custody for two weeks.

Two planes that may have been en route to deport illegal immigrants were ordered returned by the judge. However, it is unclear as of Saturday night if they have done so. //

Bukele is a tough character whose uncompromising stance on law and order has transformed El Salvador from the most dangerous to the safest country in Central America; see El Salvadorian Hardman, President Nayib Bukele Wins Blowout Re-Election Victory – RedState. I'd much rather have Venezeuelan terrorists held in El Salvador than detained in America, and if it costs less in the process, that's a bonus. //

I remain of the view that this is a test case the Trump Admin has purposely triggered in order to RE-establish POTUS authority to use the AEA [note: Alien Enemies Act] to address the consequences of the Biden Admin "Open Border" policy. That policy allowed millions of unvetted migrants to enter the country illegally. The ability of the Administration to deport a substantial number of those illegal aliens is limited by the physical facilities necessary to arrest, detain, and hold them while deportation proceedings take place. Having the ability to execute mass deportations of the worst criminal offenders without going through the processes set forth in other federal statutes would increase significantly the pace by which large numbers of such individuals could be removed without burdening the facilities we do have.

...

What makes me think this is a test case is that the complaint was filed before President Trump issued an Executive Order stating that he would be using the AEA to remove these five individuals. The exercise of authority under the AEA begins with a Presidential “Proclamation” that certain factual circumstances have arisen, and extraordinary Presidential authority granted by Congress is being invoked to respond to those circumstances.

At the time the complaint was filed, no such proclamation had been issued by President Trump, but the Complaint was specific to an extent that would be highly unlikely if the Plaintiffs’ attorneys had not been given a preview of what it was likely to say.

the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua which has been terrorizing cities across the country—and then the administration sent at least one planeload of members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” back to their country of origin.

It didn’t take long for Obama appointed Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to kneecap the effort. Not only did he issue a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of any Venezuelans, but he also ordered that the plane (or planes; it’s unclear) return the gangsters to the U.S.

The actions against the president began even before he signed the order. Mind-boggling:

Hours before the proclamation was signed, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, claiming it could be used to deport any Venezuelan in the country, regardless of whether they are a member of TdA.

At a hearing Saturday afternoon, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelans, who had already been in federal custody for two weeks.

Two planes that may have been en route to deport illegal immigrants were ordered returned by the judge. However, it is unclear as of Saturday night if they have done so.

On its face, the administration's application for a partial stay simply asks the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of the injunctions as to birthright citizenship (rather than decide the merits of the argument at this juncture). But the application also seeks to strike at the heart of an even larger issue — the explosion of universal injunctions being issued in recent years.

The rationale is spelled out succinctly in the application's next-to-last paragraph:

There are “more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts.” DHS, 140 S. Ct. at 600-601 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere. The sooner universal injunctions are “eliminated root and branch,” “the better.” Arizona, 40 F.4th at 398 (Sutton, C.J., concurring)

If nothing else, the Trump administration is prompting a thorough examination of the separation of powers and the scope of executive authority.

I'm not one to use the term "Constitutional crisis" loosely, but if this ruling stands, I think we are at that point. Alsup's decision means federal agencies cannot legally respond to a White House directive to reduce their headcount. It also changes the legal status of probationary and term appointments to tenure rather than how they have been traditionally viewed. IANAL, but I think the ability of the American Federation of Government Employees to intervene on behalf of employees who are not represented by a bargaining unit in an employment matter is highly suspect.

On Thursday, President Trump issued an executive order that cut federal ties with the Spygate incubator and major Democrat law firm Perkins Coie. The president did so based on the firm’s partisan dishonesty, and because it openly discriminates based on sex and race.

This is a good legal basis for refusing to work with any company, and it should be extended to every legal entity in the country. Top of the list should be the American Bar Association, which also advocates for and engages in unlawful racial and sexual discrimination and is a highly partisan actor on behalf of the Democrat Party and other anti-Constitution activists.

The ABA deeply affects the U.S. lawyer pipeline and licensing system, accrediting law schools, rating judges, and weaponizing lawyer discipline. Its rabid leftism means the ABA systematically ratchets the entire U.S. legal system against the U.S. Constitution.

That’s an existential threat to the country, as most recently illustrated by the dozens of federal judges the ABA helped advance who hate our supreme law so much they rule that the elected executive cannot control the unelected executive branch. With judges like those the ABA advances, the United States will quickly discard what remnants of our constitutional order persist. //

“The ABA’s public actions grew increasingly partisan throughout the Biden presidency and now into the early days of Trump’s second term. The organization justified President Biden’s preposterous assertion that the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified; claimed that bar associations have a First Amendment right to engage in racial discrimination; and sued President Trump for slashing USAID subsidies,” Fragoso notes.

By endorsing race and sex discrimination, presidents unilaterally changing the Constitution, and forbidding elected executive control of unelected executive bureaucrats, the ABA has disqualified itself as a legal organization or any kind of legitimate player in American public life. No elected official who has made a public vow to preserve and protect the Constitution should give this anti-American pressure organization the time of day.

These judges aren’t applying law; they’re rewriting it.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in dissent, saw through this charade. His words cut to the core of the issue: “Does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.” //

The separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution assigns distinct roles to each branch of government. The executive, led by the president, has broad authority over foreign affairs and the execution of federal funds, especially when Congress has not explicitly mandated their disbursement. Trump’s foreign aid pause, enacted on his first day back in office, was a legitimate exercise of that authority, aimed at reevaluating programs he deemed wasteful.

Yet the Supreme Court’s decision allows the judiciary to override this discretion, effectively seizing control of the purse strings — a power reserved for Congress and the executive. In joining the leftist justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett have tipped the scales toward judicial supremacy, blurring the lines between the branches and weakening the presidency.

President Trump should seriously consider defying this order. History offers precedent: Andrew Jackson famously ignored the Supreme Court’s 1832 ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, declaring, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Jackson’s stance was controversial, but it underscored a truth: the Supreme Court has no army, no purse, no means to enforce its will beyond the executive’s cooperation.

If Trump refuses to pay, he’d be asserting the executive’s constitutional primacy over foreign policy and federal spending, forcing a reckoning on the judiciary’s overreach. The risks — legal challenges, political backlash, Democrats later making the same play — are real, but so is the cost of compliance: a precedent that emboldens activist judges to micromanage the executive at every turn.

Critics will cry “rule of law,” but what law demands $2 billion be paid “posthaste” without due process or legislative clarity? The Administrative Procedure Act cited by Judge Ali doesn’t grant judges carte blanche to issue billion-dollar edicts. Aid groups argue the freeze caused harm, but their remedy lies with Congress, not the courts. The Supreme Court’s failure to check this abuse sets a dangerous stage for future administrations — Republican or Democrat — to be hamstrung by unelected judges wielding unchecked power.

The $2 billion order isn’t just about foreign aid; it’s about who governs. The judiciary has crossed a line, and the executive must push back. Trump should stand firm, not out of defiance, but to defend the Constitution. As Alito warned, the Supreme Court’s misstep “imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers” and rewards “an act of judicial hubris.” It’s time to reject that hubris and restore the balance of power. //

Curtis Hill is the former attorney general of Indiana.

The dispute originated in Mexico's suing seven major U.S. gun makers and one gun wholesaler for billions of dollars in damages caused by the gun violence in Mexico's drug trade. Mexico is also demanding changes in the way guns are sold in the United States so Mexican narcotrafficantes can't acquire them. None of this is to say that Mexico doesn't have a gun violence, or more accurately, a rule-of-law problem. Mexico has one gun store but has a firearm homicide rate of 16.87 per 100,000. The US has nearly 78,000 licensed gun sellers and a firearm homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000. So the problem isn't access to guns. //

The case was very significant for two reasons. It is the first major test of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that largely indemnifies gun manufacturers and resellers from lawsuits as long as they follow applicable laws and regulations. If the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the immunity claims in this case, American gun rights will disappear because manufacturers and firearms dealers will be sued into oblivion. The second reason the case is important is that Mexico's theory could be applied to any product that has the potential to be misused. Liquor distillers could be held liable for drunk-driving deaths.

Justin Murphy @jmrphy
The NYT this morning criticized Elon Musk's call to impeach federal judges, accusing him of violating constitutional norms. Well, I looked into the data and it's insane: We stopped impeaching federal judges, despite having more of them now than ever!

The impeachment rate now seems implausibly low.

Either federal judges have become saints, or something is suppressing impeachments.

What is the probability we'd observe zero impeachments from 2011-2024? Using the Poisson distribution, I think it's somewhere around 3-7% depending on how you do it. So it's very fishy.

What's even crazier is that there is a clear political story behind all of this.

The 1980 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, signed by Jimmy Carter, gave judges the power to police themselves through an obfuscated multi-layer system where chief judges dismiss almost all the complaints and judicial councils choose confidential sanctions in most of the cases where they even admit wrongdoing occurred.

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
Follow
I love all the press coverage tonight of CJ Roberts' order from about 10:00 pm ET.

All the usual suspects -- AP, Reuters, ABC, etc., all refer to it as a "temporary" hold on the order that the Court entered.

No. The Orders are "Stayed" pending further order of the Court.

If the CJ Roberts thought the District Judge was within his authority to order the Executive to spend specific amounts on money on specific grants/contracts on or before midnight tonight, he could have simply done nothing.

Instead he said the Admin need not comply with the Order. //

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
Follow
So CJ Roberts steps in around 10:00 and issues a stay on the Order to Enforce His TRO entered by Judge Amir Ali in DC -- a District Court judge for all of 90 days.

Judge Ali's TRO had commanded that the Executive

While the "merits" of the withholding might be subject to some legitimate legal debate, when a higher court -- or the Chief Justice -- steps in so abruptly there is very often a key issue that the lower court judge is simply ignoring in his haste to "do right" -- and I think that is the problem here. The District Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim or provide the relief requested -- whether the plaintiffs are entitled to it or not. Judge Ali brushed off the questions about jurisdiction in his fit of pique over what he saw as DOJ non-compliance with his Order. But there is a truism that all federal civil litigators know -- one that never occurs to legal reporter: "Jurisdiction is always at issue.". //

Has the Supreme Court finally gotten fed up with courts setting executive-branch policies? Based on last night’s intervention by Chief Justice Supreme Court John Roberts, the answer could be yes.

This is EXCELLENT on the differences between a Democracy and a Republic.

Thinking and behaving like we live in a democracy will be our downfall.

Leslie Johnson
@bithits
·
Oct 21, 2024
The first true democracy was in Athens, Greece. It was a disaster. If 51% wanted you dead, you were executed.
If 51% wanted a war, they got it. And it did happen, often.

Truth Slinger X
@TruthSlingerX
·
Oct 21, 2024
That's why we have a Democratic REPUBLIC and the checks and balances that brings.

The Trump administration is targeting court interpretations that have stripped the president of full control over personnel, and policy, within federal agencies.

Charlie Kirk

@charliekirk11
·
Follow
For the first time in my lifetime we have an administration that is dead serious about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in government so the next generation doesn’t live as debt slaves.

Every expense must be justified—with our tax dollars you are guilty until proven innocent.

5:11 PM · Feb 24, 2025. //

The thing to realize about the government is that it's not a citizen of the United States, and thus isn't subject to the same rights as we are. In fact, the government doesn't technically have any rights, it has allowances as agreed upon by the people of the United States of America. It has certain powers, to be sure, but these powers can be increased, decreased, or eliminated as the people see fit.

As you can see, this is exactly what's happening with DOGE. The people demanded a reduction in government power and a removal of waste, and that's exactly what's happening. Even as the Democrats and leftists cry foul, the government is losing its power.

There is a simple truth buried here.

If a government is unable or unwilling to reveal how it's using the money it takes from us with the threat of punishment for not giving up, then it's not our government. //

. In fact, government is often times a necessary evil, born out of a need to inhibit the worst impulses of man, whether those impulses be foreign or domestic. It is a system necessary for civilization to happen in an imperfect world, but it's the fact that we have an imperfect world that the system we create to curb is itself imperfect, and thus needs to be monitored, audited, and sometimes destroyed, at least in part so as not to have to be destroyed in its totality.

My gut feeling is that, for reasons I laid out in Trump Declares War on the Administrative State, Dellinger's case is much closer to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case that resulted in the protection given that agency's director being tossed than it is to the safe harbor of Humphrey's Executor. Dellinger is not in charge of a "quasi-legislative" or "quasi-judiicial" organization; he wields quintessentially executive power, and to insulate him from the chief executive of the land is unconstitutional. In his dissent, Gorsuch basically said there was no legal way to reinstate Dellinger. But as Jonathan Turley said, a majority of the Supreme Court would rather this case go away than rule on the facts it offers.

Trump signed two Executive Orders Thursday that focus on rolling back the role of the federal government beyond its statutory functions and ensuring that those efforts are emphasized across all departments and agencies. The orders are titled "Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy" and "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Regulatory Initiative."

Let's take a look at them one at a time, beginning with the easiest. //

When combined with the Trump Executive Order requiring the repeal of ten regulations for each new one published in the Federal Register (see Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation), we can see the groundwork being laid to eliminate the superfluous government agencies and regulations that have no greater purpose than to aggrandize power to the bureaucracy. Add that to the concerted legal attack on the Administrative State (Trump Declares War on the Administrative State), and Trump could very well end up having rolled back a century of our descent from a constitutional republic into a being held in serfdom by an unelected, responsive, and uncaring bureaucracy. //

Popdaddy
6 hours ago
Months of pre-election planning went into this. There are other plans and so much more can be accomplished. //

Dieter Schultz
5 hours ago

When combined with the Trump Executive Order requiring the repeal of ten regulations for each new one published in the Federal Register (see Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation), we can see the groundwork being laid to eliminate the superfluous government agencies and regulations that have no greater purpose than to aggrandize power to the bureaucracy.

I think soon... maybe before the 6 month mark but, sooner rather than later... we'll need another attack vector on the bureaucratic state and that would be for enough states to get together and challenge the regulations and federal laws as being unconstitutional in that they encroach on the states' duties and responsibilities under the Constitution.

Trump can apply tremendous pressure from the inside and deflate the bureaucratic bubble but, I suspect, it'll require the states... well, anyway, a core of the red states... to make it impossible for the federal government's overreach to ever be resurrected by the elites when Trump and his heirs leave the world's stage.

In 1932, FDR decided he had better use for the seat and summarily fired Humphrey. Humphrey sued but died five months later. The executor of his estate pressed the suit to recoup five months' salary. This spat was destined to become a landmark Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), or just Humphrey's Executor. Mr. Humphrey's estate hit the jackpot.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled: //

This ruling let independent agencies do whatever they wished. As rulemaking became a big deal, an independent agency in the hands of political opponents of the president with the power to interpret statutes and make legally binding regulations could engage in sabotage of the president's agenda. //

Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
.
Earlier today I posted a Substack article arguing that the TROs being sought against the Trump Admin are, in many respects, great opportunities for the Admin to assert its Article II authority over the Admin. state and push back against encroachments by Congress and the lower…

SCOTUS has danced around the continuing vitality of the Humphrey's decision for many many years. The issue is now squarely before them. This is a fight worth having at this moment in time.

And the most important part about fights worth having is that you need someone who will fight them. And we do. //

Musicman
6 hours ago
Let's pray we finally have a Supreme Court that cares about the Constitution. There are three branches and only three branches. Either each "independent" board reports to the Executive, the Legislative or the Judicial. Those are the only choices. The notion of any kind of board with any kind of power could exist apart from the three branches is simply unconstitutional. Period.

Judge Contreras relied on a very shaky 1935 precedent called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This precedent established the, in my view, unconstitutional and un-republican plethora of "independent" boards and commissions that carry out executive functions but aren't answerable to the guy in whom the "executive Power" of the United States is "vested." Recent cases have held that any commission holding anything other than an advisory capacity must be controlled by the President; how the MSPB's role in adjudicating employment disputes will be viewed is unknown.

This case is headed to the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court. Another similar case, that of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, is at the Supreme Court; Trump Sends Scorching Appeal of DC Court Order Reinstating Biden Appointee to the Supreme Court – RedState. In that case, Trump fired Dellinger, who had the same legal protections as MSPB judges. A judge ordered Dellinger reinstated, and the Supreme Court will get Dellinger's response to the government's objections at 2 p.m. Wednesday.

Other possible cases testing the limits of Humphrey’s Executor are the firings of 17 IGs, who, by statute, can only be fired after a 30-day notice to Congress and an explanation of the reasons, and a member of the National Labor Relations Board. //

Laocoön of Troy
10 hours ago
Remember corrupt FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page? Remember the friendly judge who they secretly met with at a party to plot their next moves against Trump? The crooked judge? Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama appointee). Strzok referred to him affectionally as "Rudy" like they were old buds.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/strzok-page-texts-reveal-personal-relationship-between-fbi-official-and-judge-recused-from-flynn-case

Looks like the crooks from Trump's first term are trying to get the band back together.

all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register. //

The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. //

If this order sticks, Trump has permanently and fundamentally changed the Executive Branch, as it has existed since 1935, in less than a month. //

bk
9 hours ago edited
Liberals: "Musk is unelected and therefore can't tell us what to do!"
Also libs: "How dare Trump interfere with tens of thousands of unelected bureaucrats who have been telling us what to do for decades!"

Though they lost, they got a solid dissent to work with and went to the Supreme Court.

Their arguments are that the president has absolute authority to remove officials at will and that every time the Supreme Court has heard a case similar to Dellinger's, they have agreed. //

Whatever the agency, for the President to discharge his constitutional duty to supervise those who exercise executive power on his behalf, the President can “remove the head of an agency with a single top officer” at will. Collins 594 U.S. at 256. On that basis, President Biden in 2021 fired the single head of the Social Security Administration without cause. //

!This Court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the President how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will. “Where a lower court allegedly impinges on the President’s core Article II powers, immediate appellate review should be generally available.”. //

As a general matter, the Constitution “scrupulously avoids concen-trating power in the hands of any single individual” save for the President, who is“the most democratic and politically accountable official in Government.” Id. at 223-224. Single agency heads thus must be accountable to the President through at-will removal. There are only four single agency heads upon whom Congress has sought to confer tenure protection: the Directors of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the Commissioner of Social Security, and the Special Counsel here. The former three are undisputedly subject to at-will removal under Article II. This Court’s precedents foreclose any special exception for the Special Counsel.

Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
·
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland
3/3 As drafted, the Order would prohibit Donald Trump & heads of agencies from assessing data or firing anyone. Would be most restrictive of all TROs entered to day if Court enters.
10:23 PM · Feb 15, 2025

ConservativeInMinnesota
an hour ago
Ranked choice voting uses multiple rounds of voting. That’s effectively more than one vote per person. That arguably makes it unconstitutional. //

anon-rnsl
3 minutes ago
Here is my solution as a Constitutional amendment:

If you're not eligible to vote for a candidate for public office, you cannot contribute to their campaign.... Period.

But this is a high bar indeed.

Better results might occur at the state level.... after all Sates, not the Federal Government, runs elections.

So here ya go....

You're not eligible to vote for an initiative, proposition, or candidate... you can't contribute to them.... Period.

FWIW - For Whatever Its Worth