This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal district judges across the nation, at the behest of leftists who oppose President Donald Trump and go judge-shopping for the best ruling they can get, have been extremely liberal in their use of nationwide injunctions to try to stop the president's plans.
But the Supreme Court's decision that James Boasberg's decision from his Washington court bench that Trump was not allowed to deport criminal illegal aliens was simply irrelevant is being considered a slapdown to federal judges and their overreach agenda.
Just the News reports the Trump administration has endured a record number of temporary restraining orders against its policies, with low-level federal judges imposing their own political ideas with vast orders and restrictions.
"The Department of Justice has repeatedly urged the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of federal injunctions or to clarify the extent of lower court judges' authority to interfere in executive branch operations," the report said. And in fact some justices on the high court have said the issue needs to be addressed.
This week's 5-4 decision by the justices opted to overturn Boasberg's order halting Trump's enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act and it went much further, declaring Washington was an inappropriate venue for the case even to be heard.
That's because the gang members' detentions are in Texas.
The court did say that the gang members need to be given timely notification and be allowed to challenge their removals.
They wrote, "For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today's order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement."
The report noted Texas is in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, one of the most conservative courts across the country, and those courts are expected to be receptive to Trump's plan to secure America by removing criminal illegal aliens.
The provision for due process, however, likely will slow down the process.
Chief Justice John Roberts also blocked another order from Boasberg, who demanded that Trump bring back to America an illegal alien who was deported.
The ruling regarding deportations explained Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., "provides only a temporary reprieve in one case among many where partisan federal district court judges are throwing up roadblocks to frustrate President Trump's efforts to honor his campaign promise to secure the border and deport illegal immigrants."
He called for the Supreme Court to do "far more" to put a leash on radical liberal judges who are presuming to take over portions of the responsibilities of the Executive Branch of the American government.
Added Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, "[I]t looks like SCOTUS will rule that Trump has broad substantive power to deport but he must exercise that power within due process constraints."
The report said the ruling was one of the first actions to "chastise" district judges for their overreach, and the forum shopping done by leftist groups bringing cases. The cases have covered handing out taxpayer cash to wildly inappropriate causes, dismissing federal workers, realigning agency responsibilities, securing America's borders, and much, much more.
The Trump administration has called out those courts for issuing "more universal injunctions and TROs" in one month than the total issued during the first three years of the administration of Joe Biden.
"That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this court's emergency docket," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris explained.
The report said the latest rulings could indicate how the justices may address some other appeals.
The Supreme Court already has acknowledged the scheme of leftists hunting down leftist judges for favorable rulings.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito, on a ruling from a lower court that demanded Trump continue handing out taxpayer cash through USAID programs, said, "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."
Boasberg, meanwhile, has canceled a planned hearing he was going to hold in the case of the illegal aliens deported under the federal AEA law. He said, after the Supreme Court ruling, that the appropriate venue is Texas, where the suspects are held.
