Saturday, 19 April 2025

Fed Judges AGAIN Block Trump Admin from Deporting Venezuelan TdA ‘Alien Enemies’ After SCOTUS Ruling

100 Percent Fed Up
Hits: 11

It has only been two days since the Supreme Court ruled against Judge Boasberg.

Just two days ago SCOTUS ruled against Boasberg’s illegal restraining order that halted deportations of Tren de Aragua gang members, and then determined that Boasberg did not have jurisdictional authority to try the case to begin with.

Now, after what WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has called a ‘smackdown’ against Judge Boasberg’s attack on President Trump’s immigration policy, more judges have stepped forward to join the fight.

Nearly simultaneous TRO’s (temporary restraining orders) came from federal judges in Texas and New York a short time ago.

In both cases, Boasberg’s restraining order (which the SCOTUS ruled against!) have basically been duplicated — again blocking the Trump Administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegals with dangerous affiliations.

In Texas, Federal Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. issued his TRO in response to the impending deportation of 5 suspected criminal gang members from his federal district under the Alien Enemies Act.

And in New York, Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein issued a similar TRO, ensuring those facing deportation from within his district would first receive notice and a hearing in court.

It has been argued that the President holds Constitutional executive authority to carry out these deportations without a hearing and without the due process afforded to American citizens, since we’re talking about NON-CITIZENS who are in the country ILLEGALLY.  (Me — I’m the one arguing that, all day long until I’m blue in the face.)

But while the SCOTUS ruling from two days ago did issue a jurisdictional ‘smackdown’ to Judge Boasberg, and simultaneously agreed that the President had the authority to deport illegals…

It did, however, temporarily rule that while this issue is being hashed out in the courts, those facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act must be afforded that same due process, and a hearing.

In essence, the rogue judicial activism is continuing — it just doesn’t include Judge Boasberg going forward.

One has to wonder at this point if the SCOTUS ruling wasn’t exactly the ‘win’ it was first imagined to be, as much as a move that accomplished getting Boasberg out of the fight and expanding the sheer number of potential injunctions.

Here’s a great primer for understanding Monday’s SCOTUS ruling — what it did, and what it didn’t do — from Ted Cruz’ explanation on a legal podcast:

The Federal Judge in Texas restricts the removal of five specific individuals facing deportation, as well as ‘any other person’ the Trump Administration might attempt to deport under the Alien Enemies Act.

While the Federal Judge in New York specified that without the block, those facing deportation in his jurisdiction wouldn’t likely have time to contest their removal as stipulated by the SCOTUS ruling, according to a report by Fox News:

Two federal judges in Texas and New York on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals — the latest in a high-profile legal saga centered on the administration’s use of a wartime immigration law to immediately deport certain migrants.

Plaintiffs filed two separate lawsuits asking federal judges in Brownville, Texas, and Orange County, New York, to grant a temporary restraining order blocking their removals under the 1798 wartime immigration law that was reviewed by the Supreme Court just days earlier.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., in Brownsville, Texas, granted a temporary restraining order filed on behalf of three Venezuelan nationals. The order temporarily blocks their removal under the AEA, as well as the removal of “any other person that Respondents claim are subject to removal under the Proclamation” from the district’s El Valle Detention Center, according to the text of his ruling.

Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, sided with plaintiffs’ contention that allowing the law to be used for their deportations would likely cause “immediate and irreparable injury to the removed individuals,” whom he said would likely be “unable to seek habeas relief.”

Rodriguez said he will hear from both parties in court again Friday to continue extending the 14-day emergency order.

In the New York case filed in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein — a Clinton appointee — sided with two Venezuelan nationals whose attorneys argued they likely wouldn’t have time to seek the habeas relief granted by the Supreme Court in its emergency ruling.

Both clients, “and others similarly situated to them,” are now “all at imminent risk of removal” by the Trump administration without proper notice, lawyers said in the filing.

Hellerstein’s ruling, unlike that of the federal judge in Texas, stopped short of directly addressing whether the Alien Enemies Act is an appropriate legal basis for deporting the two individuals, though it temporarily blocks the law from being used to remove them.

Besides the expected continued judicial pushback against President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in jurisdictions outside that of Judge Boasberg’s DC court…

There is also now a push to hold these hearings in Spanish, since many of the individuals being targeted for deportation are not fluent in English, as CBS is reporting:

As bad as it was having a single federal judicial entity pushing back against deporting these criminals, it may now be WORSE.

Where there was only a single Judge pushing back against the prospect that President Trump has the authority to deport illegal criminals, now there will be Federal Judges all over the nation carrying that torch.

One plausible danger that could now present itself much more easily would be the potential for corruption.

The possibility that criminal elements would leverage pressure against these judges to rule in favor of the cartels and criminal gangs is definitely not zero, and the likelihood of that happening also has increased now that the jurisdictional map is wide open, as opposed to being centered in a single court district effecting the entire nation.

(I’m not arguing in favor of a court’s ability to impact nationwide injunctions… simply stating a plausible end result.)

Check out what journalist Ben Bergquam had to say about that specific possibility during his conversation with Benny Johnson:

While I have no dots connecting that potential corruption to what is happening today with these two judges in Texas and New York…

The plausibility that criminal elements could use the SCOTUS ruling to push back against multiple judges who will now be trying this issue in their far-flung districts is definitely there.

Judge Rodriguez in Texas referenced the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia during his actions today, whose deportation the Trump Administration acknowledges was partly a result of a clerical error, but which it also argues was justified — well within its Constitutional authority to carry out.

Both the plaintiffs in the Texas and New York case are trying to make the case that ALL deportations using the Alien Enemies Act should stop, according to CBS News:

Federal judges in both New York and Texas have blocked the deportations of Venezuelan men likely to be deported under the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, again stopping the White House’s attempts to remove alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang after the Supreme Court cleared the way for their deportations this week.

In one case filed in Manhattan, attorneys for two Venezuelan men who are currently being detained in Orange County, New York, successfully argued to block their clients’ deportations and movement outside of the state and the United States. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton, granted the temporary relief.

The new case in Texas was brought on behalf of the same Venezuelans who challenged their potential deportation in Washington, D.C., where the initial block of the deportations was entered by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg before it was lifted by the Supreme Court on Monday in a 5-4 decision. The Texas judge overseeing the petition, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., was appointed to the federal bench by President Trump during his first term.

Rodriguez referenced the ongoing case brought by a Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was arrested by immigration authorities last month and sent to El Salvador, where he is currently in the notorious prison known as CECOT. A Trump administration official acknowledged Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador was an “administrative error,” but the government has said he is now in custody of the Salvadoran government.

An emergency appeal involving Abrego Garcia is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Both sets of plaintiffs are attempting to convince judges not just to block the deportations of the men who filed suit, but to block all future deportations of any Venezuelans under this statute. They argue that the Trump administration’s invocation of the law is unconstitutional because the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela and dispute the government’s categorization of the plaintiffs as gang members, arguing they have been falsely accused of being in the Tren de Aragua gang.

Judge Boasberg canceled yesterday’s planned hearing to continue his own campaign against President Trump’s Constitutional authority following the SCOTUS ruling against him.

Boasberg’s ‘suspicious’ request, as we previously reported, seems now to have found fruition:

Judge Boasberg CANCELS HEARING After SCOTUS Vacates His Jurisdiction, But Makes Suspicious Next Move

That 'next move' seems as clear as day, now, after watching these simultaneous restraining orders come forth from two different federal judges.

That was the only path forward, and Judge Boasberg highlighted it for the plaintiffs involved -- and any activist judges who might be prone to follow suit -- when he requested the plaintiffs respond whether they would like to continue their suit.

They say hindsight is 20/20, and with these new TRO's, I would agree.

Here we are once again with activist Federal Judges challenging the legitimate authority of the elected President of the United States.

No wonder Chief Justice Roberts suddenly stepped up to rule 'in favor' of President Trump; he would certainly have had the legal foresight to recognize that the end result would be a multiplying effect in scattered litigations across the country.

Maybe those connections between Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Boasberg should come back under the microscope for a little while longer, after all.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.


Source link

Search