I have previously written against calls to impeach federal judges who have ruled against the Trump Administration in the issuing of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions. The latest target of such calls in the House is District Court Judge James Boasberg, who issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. GOP members are making a mistake in engaging in the same impeachment craze that took hold of the Democratic members in prior years (and continues this year). The way to respond to such rulings is to appeal them, not to try to remove judges (which is neither warranted nor likely).
One of the greatest abuses of the Democratic party in the past eight years has been their use of impeachment investigations and charges against their political opponents. From President Donald Trump to conservative justices, liberal members have demanded impeachments over everything from opposing the NFL kneelers to hanging revolutionary-era flags.
Now, some Republican members (and Elon Musk) have joined this frenzy in calling for the impeachment of judges who ruled against Trump’s earlier executive orders and programs. Elon Musk has supported this effort.
The Trump Administration was fully aware that the executive proclamation invoking the use of the Alien Enemies Act to detain and deport members of Tren de Aragua would be controversial. While the Administration believes that it can establish the legal basis for such use of the largely dormant law, the issuing of a temporary restraining order within hours of the EO was not unexpected. We expect an expedited and intense appeal process to now unfold.
The Alien Enemies Act is best known as one of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 used by the Adams Administration. I discuss the abuse of those acts in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
The case presents a number of novel issues. First, as a threshold matter, is whether a presidential determination of the underlying criteria is even reviewable by the federal courts. Some argue, and the Trump Administration is likely to assert, that this is a political question that is heavily laden with international and national security determinations.
Second, assuming that it is reviewable, the Act was designed for deportations in wartime or in cases of “invasion.” We have previously discussed how states sought to broaden the definition of “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4, the so-called Guarantee Clause. The Trump Administration is arguing that Tren de Aragua is different because it is being used or directed by the Venezuelan government. Trump has previously alleged that the radical regime is emptying its prisons to undermine the United States. Under this argument, the gang is being used by a “foreign nation or government.”
The treatment of this as an invasion could also trigger other powers from states closing the borders unilaterally to even a move to suspend habeas corpus.
The point is only that there are good faith arguments on both sides to be made in the courts. That is why we have independent courts and the finest judicial system in the world.
I have criticized Judge Boasberg, who was involved in the controversial FISA surveillance during the first Trump term and made a poor choice of the attorney tasked with investigating that matter. I also criticized him in prior treatment of pro-life litigants in a case reversed by the D.C. Circuit. However, he has also ruled against Trump critics).
The response for the Administration should be to seek an expedited appeal. The district court cannot drag out a TRO very long before issuing an order that can be appealed.
This country is facing novel issues and the Administration is not surprisingly trying to use novel means to address them. I expect that it will prevail in many of these initial fights while losing others. That is part of the process in a nation committed to the rule of law.
The Trump Administration can appeal and leave impeachment out of it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
My question is if a judge disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling, they can ignore it? Ludecke v. Watkins is to me identical to the worst case scenario Judge Boasberg can think of. A legal resident kicked out of the country because of their unpopular opinion. (I.E. they support Tren de Aragua)
This issue discussed ably by Miller with a CNN reader is a poisonous problem that could be resolved if the Supreme Court acted.
It seems some members have to pull their fingers out and test the political winds before doing anything.
If district court judges and the DNC are going to war to protect savage gang members then the political winds may reach hurricane force and the judiciary will struggle to recover the respect it once had…if it ever recovers.
Imagine if a judge told the troops landing on Omaha Beach that they had to return to their boats and come back to the US for hearings before the war could continue.
https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1901762315512361421
More briefly, Miller could have said:
“You know about separation of powers? Yes? This is one of the President’s powers separated from judges.”
FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
At the Second Session,
Begun and held at the city of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, on Monday, the thirteenth of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven.
An Act Concerning Aliens.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States….
Law Professor, Glenn Reynolds, argues the judiciary may end up only hurting itself with attacks on Trump and he ends with the need for the Supreme Court to intervene, sooner rather than later.
But I think it may have gone beyond the power of the Supreme Court to patch crap up. Legislative changes to court jurisdiction are needed.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/17/opinion/how-federal-judges-trump-hate-is-harming-the-courts
Now Senator Grassley
https://x.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1901269822987506157
A simple amendment to the Act to include invasionists “whether state sponsored or not” could be a backstop… but the SCOTUS will opine in favor of the administration.
I wish I had written this comment. That was an excellent response.
James Howard Kuntsler has a proposal for what to do about Boasberg:
Welcome to FAFO-Land
“The history of Judge Boasberg in particular presents a disturbing picture of a tool covering-up every act of the shadowy blob’s war against American citizens… What can be done about judges like Boasberg? The prevailing view is: not much. I’m not so sure that’s true.”
https://www.kunstler.com/p/welcome-to-fafo-land
The safety of the flight is the joint responsibility of the Pilot in Command and the Dispatcher (FAR 125). For a sitting judge to attempt to overule that authority from from the bench with no knowledge of the flight or security conditions faced by the crew requires a substantial rebuke. Perhaps similar to the rebuke given to King Alonso by the Botswain in the opening scene of Shakespeare’s Tempest: SILENCE, TROUBLE US NOT.
Alonso: Good boatswain, have care. Where’s the master? Play the men.
Boatswain: I pray now, keep below.
Antonio: Where is the master, boatswain?
Boatswain: Do you not hear him? You mar our labour: keep your cabins: you do assist the storm.
Gonzalo. Nay, good, be patient.
Boats. When the sea is. Hence! What cares these roarers for the name of king? To cabin: silence! trouble us not.
Crazy and evil enough to be from a true Obama/Biden judge:
“Federal Judge Orders Astronauts to be Returned to Space Station ”
https://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1901672770154672280
But it is Babylon Bee, once again reflecting deep truths through humor.
Now that the reputation of the federal judiciary has sunk into the internet humor swamp, surrounded by its gators and cotton mouths, it may never recover its dignity and respect.
Supreme Court, you waited too long.
Your ‘hallowed’ Rule of Law is now grist and meal for comics.
Working to retain Murders & Rapists in America (that came here illegally) is where many of us part ways with
sick decisions clearly made from American hating judges.
Dear Professor Turley. What is your argument in favor of your claim that the United States Judiciary is the “finest judiciary in the world?” Last night on Life, Liberty, and Levin, Mark Levin and Newt Gingrich argued, with historical precedent, in favor of impeaching Federal District Court Judges who are exceeding their authority or abolishing the Federal Judiciary or cutting the funding of the Federal Judiciary. What is your argument against these proposals? Also, what exactly are the scope and limits of judicial power, in contrast to the scope and limits of legislative power, and the scope and limits of executive power? What exactly is your view on the separation of powers?
Best regards,
Reece Newman, Ph.D.
Oakwood, Ohio
The three branches of government are separate and distinct.
No branch shall usurp or exercise the power of another branch.
The People through Congress may remove, by impeachment, any civil officers.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
Article 2
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Article 3
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I would consider abuse of power as overstepping the boundaries of the judiciary as defined by the Constitution, unarguably a misdemeanor offense. First I would have Quido and Tony pay him a friendly visit. You know, look through his wife’s lingerie drawer…maybe hit him in the face with a microphone…
#74. It is a national security issue and is federalist in that this issue effects the whole nation and the whole people. The gang is a designated terrorist entity and this engulfs a war and an invasion by number.
The issue of green card holder and marriage to a citizen is before the court now in birthright. The particulars of this person’s entrance, date, reasons may or may not matter.
It does bring to light student visas from hostile nations and backgrounds because the United States may enter into full scale war.
The person is not a citizen and if evidence proves a member of a hostile force, he can be deported and green card revoked or imprisoned for crimes against the nation and its people.
In good faith his circumstance and inclinations are under review. It is doubtful he’ll become a citizen because of criminal activities if those are presented with solid evidence and that good for the nation as a whole regarding security and not a factional issue.
IMO
^^^I’ve gotten Kahlil, non-citizen, and the Venezuelan gangs, non-citizen.
In any event James Madison is addressing citizens. We are a low level of war. Deport if national security exists or Bondi can prosecute if she’d get busy and 4get the gossip column epstein and Kennedy
Prior and current criticisms of this judge’s activities appear to have no influence on him and are thus merely academic. If oversight by the other branches of government mean anything, there must be accountability. We as a society must not be afraid of upsetting traditions of decorum when the systems are clearly not operating normally. Partisan “lawfare” is not “law.” It’s is a real problem that appeals were not meant to curtail. The time has come for establishment etiquette to take a back seat to reform.
“… a nation committed to the rule of law.” Really? What will it take for your many criticisms of judges like Boasberg, Merchan and others, using their position to color outsides the lines of the law for political purposes, to turn those into calls for impeachment, Professor? Seriously, short of being caught on camera taking bribes, what will it take for you to see we have a problem with way too many prosecutors and judges knowing nothing will happen to them after being overrulled again and again yet be all-for putting a defendant through the financial wringer? Signed, Curious in Flyover Country
Possibly, but lawfare is designed to run out the clock. Which is in chapter one of the democrat play book.
TdA is among many with the muscle to influence the way public officials behave as well as to influence elections. And at the and of the day winning elections is all that counts. Justice at the street level is only meted out to the weak and the poor.
Trump seems to have declared the J6 Committee pardons void
Autopen.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114175908922736427
Maybe they ran the autopen themselves. Maybe the administration knows. Seems likely.
Bet the rats are worried tonight.
If all of this is legit and investigators can prove it, then nearly everything done during the Biden Occupancy, all the EOs and all the laws that the autopen signed, are likely to be void.
They should be void anyhow because he was apparently too mentally diminished to stand trial so would his contracts be valid, his Will, any legal document he executed?
The autopen just adds another layer of big questions.
just think of what they could do by proving Obama is a fraud he truly is…
Matt Margolis makes interesting points on the autopen issue. One is why isn’t the Biden/Obama team aggressively countering Ttump’s claim? Not even a peep yet. Hoping it will go away? I wouldn’t count on bureaucrat Omerta if I were them. They have less honor than mobsters.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/03/17/heres-the-brilliance-behind-trumps-move-declaring-bidens-pardons-void-n4937986
More on President Autopen. Was it really Obama’s third term?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/speaker_mike_johnson_reveals_why_the_autopen_scandal_is_a_big_deal.html
The time to stall is over.
50 U.S. Code § 21 – Restraint, regulation, and removal
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21
At some point within the exercise of authority, it must be asked: who is in charge? – if not the people’s elected representatives?
Largely dormant? That’s doing a lot of lifting sir.
A law is a law. And it has seen use – 1948? Not too long ago.
Didn’t certain courts use Laches during the 2020 election?
Professor Turley – by ruling out impeachment for judges who have clearly abandoned their promise to rule on the law, not on their personal preferences, you are 1) pushing the country closer to Jackson Marshall ‘then let him enforce it’ moment; and 2) ignoring the plain evidence that Justice Roberts is a coward, who refuses to user SCOTUS’ supervisory authority and rulemaking influence to reign in what clearly are activist Democrats in black robes. If not impeachment, then what sir? Appeal every lunatic overreach so those folks rejected from power in the last election, get through dilatory tactics what they could not achieve at the ballot box?
I fear you are right about Roberts. That leaves ACB as the thin line between Trump being able to restore vitality to America, and our further sinking into a miasma of debt, dysfunction, and national death.
Roberts and ACB are OWNED by the Corrupt Deep State. Trump’s Administration has to identify Roberts’ and ACB’s handlers and eliminate them (be they within the government itself or indirectly exerting authoritarian control via corporate contracts with the governments). Once those pernicious Deep State forces have been 100% neutralized, Roberts and ACB will be compelled to actually follow the law for the first time in their wretched lives.
They are ALL owned by the deep state in one way or the other. I am sure the deep state is divided along lines similar to our own.
If a judge develops a record of being overruled, then there should be some means for them to be removed from the bench due to an incompetence of the rule of law.
Like the entire 9th circuit on the west coast?
They are DEI,AF, DEIB, and D&I all rolled into one indigestible burrito.
Aka a Chit sandwich! but remember Amish Warrior the more bread you have the less chit you have to eat.
Professor Turley, there is a piece missing in your argument, that recourse is through Appeals… i.e., where is the ACCOUNTABILITY of these ‘Judges’ who ignore their oath of impartiality and behave like Party activists with their clever lawfare? Doesn’t the whole world run on ‘Accountability..? and built into this model is the means of dismissal for those who fail to play by, ignore or twist the rules.. WHY would ‘judges’ be immune to dismissal?
“Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States however that is accomplished,” Boasberg wrote.
Riiiiiight. A little dweeb law clerk types those words into MS Word as if they’re going to make planes in the air turn around. “Oopsie, too late.” -President Bukele
When the law starts losing its ability to command respect, eventually it loses its ability to command obedience. It’s a shame arrogant left-wing activist judges are taking us down this road, but here we are.
Judge “Oopsie-Too Late!” gets mocked, very publicly, by the President of El Salvador.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/03/16/president-nayib-bukele-of-el-salvador-reacts-to-u-s-judicial-activism-oopsie-too-late-salvadorian-gang-members-offloaded-and-detained/
That is well deserved and will likely sting. He should stop lying in the road before the rest of the caravan marches over him.
Reputation in the pothole.
Obama is going to be furious with his protege.
Obama appointment , Democrat senate confirmed.
The case is interesting. He’s a green card holder, a permanent resident. Let’s hear the administration’s argument.
Under the patriot act he could be prosecuted and jailed for life at Gitmo. Prosecuted by a military tribunal for aiding a known terrorist organization, be careful what you wish for…
The problelm I see is that nothing can happen today because of the terrible divisin n our country..the Left is so angry that ugliness with so much violence that any judges
in the past 4-8- years have shown themselves to be activists not judges: Biden bragged about the 2,500 judges that became part of the justice system during his term…..
In its NOTICE TO THE COURT the DOJ said:
“Going forward, and in the absence of appellate relief, Federal Defendants will continue to protect the United States using authorities other than the Proclamation.”
In other words, even if the Court of Appeals upholds the injunction of the Jacobin Judge, President Trump will use other tools than his Proclamation to protect the country and its citizens.
I imagine he has a lot of them for the judge to enjoin and he can keep using them until the Court of Appeals gets sick of the pile of appeals on its desk and acts on behalf of America instead of the DC cocktail circuit.
The reputation of the federal courts is plummeting as fast as the CDC and the FBI. They seem as crazy as the DNC.