It has been a busy 24 hours in the courts. Early this morning, the Supreme Court blocked (for now) the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act, a law only used three times before in our history. At the same time, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the lower court’s order in the case of Abrego Garcia.
Despite the growing counter-constitutional movement, both decisions show how the courts are functioning appropriately and expeditiously in sorting out these difficult cases. Indeed, I wanted to flag a couple of paragraphs in the Fourth Circuit case that I hope everyone will take a second to read and consider from Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a widely respected conservative judge.
The justices ordered the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans being held in the Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the order. However, this is merely a hold on deportations pending further review of the emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
This rarely used and highly controversial law stretches back to the Adams Administration. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of the case that the Court wants to consider. Accordingly, this is not surprising.
The Fourth Circuit also correctly upheld the lower court order in the Garcia case. I remain confused by the administration’s appeal. The Supreme Court already upheld the order requiring the Administration to facilitate Garcia’s return. I have been critical of that opinion, but it clearly recognized the authority of the district court to issue that part of the earlier order.
However, Judge Wilkinson’s opinion contains one passage that I wanted to excerpt. It is a measured and important point that both branches need to show mutual respect in these cases. This sage advice is not coming from a critic or a liberal jurist. It is coming from someone who has been at the heart of conservative jurisprudence for decades:
“The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.
Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph. It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.
Well said, your honor.
One can disagree with the ultimate merits on legal issues. However, as I have previously written, the disagreement on those issues should not trigger demands for impeachment or other extreme measures.
There have been decades, at least, of so much of our laws and constitution being poorly, or incorrectly interpreted by non-objective jurists that it may take as many years or more to sort this out.
Of course, this would happen only if strict constructionalist judges, at all levels, upheld their oaths, ( actually – what good is an atheist’s oath on anything) and sorted out all the mis-interpretation made on the whims of those thinking that the constitution is malleable.
Of corse, none of this will happen if we, on the right, are assassinated by ignorant college students and illegal gangs.
We’re in a Constitutional crisis because Congress has for decades shirked responsibility to be the place where major controversies are settled in a reasonable timeframe. I define reasonable as within a full 2 year term following the breakout of the controversy.
The other 2 branches of govt. are left to try to settle these controversies. When the people elect a President nowadays, the role is assumed to be a major policy setter, not the Chief Executive merely enforcing the laws on the books. The explosion of Exec. Orders under Obama, Biden and Trump attest to this “President as legislator” role.
Activist plaintiffs then use the Courts as a venue for policy, this time fighting to thwart the will of the majority who voted in the President’s platform.
These impromptu, makeshift roles are brazen deviations from Constitutional structure. Worst yet, the public and the media have accepted that Congress has no role to play. The latest example is Birthright Citizenship. Everyone sees this as a policy battle — WH vs. Supreme Court. The fact that there is a Bill (HR 569) in Congress that resolves the ambiguity of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” goes completely unmentioned. I think this is partly due to the media format elevating conflict theatrics (conflict resolution is considered boring). But, it betrays a deep historical amnesia about Congress being the the place where Citizenship Rules are established:
1790 – Children of immigrants automatically become Citizens the same day their parents Naturalize (“Citizenship by Derivation”). Birthright citizenship is limited to newborns of US Citizen fathers who meet a 10-year residency requirement, and it matters not whether the birth takes place on US soil (jus sanguinis). Naturalization limited to white Europeans “of good character”
1866 – Former slaves are “hereby” granted US Citizenship en mass, eligibility by birthplace in US. NOT ELIGIBLE:
newborns to diplomats, foreign invading forces, Indians not taxed; Citizenship by Derivation remains the
standard for how and when immigrant children obtain citizenship
1870 – Immigrants of black African descent made eligible for Naturalization; Chinese still excluded
1924 – Native Americans granted US Citizenship en mass; may retain tribal citizenship in parallel; Immigration quota system adopted favoring northern Europeans
1942 – Chinese finally allowed to be Naturalized
1965 – Nationality quota system abolished; post-racial immigration (non-discrimination) established
If you think that some of these laws passed defied previous Supreme Court decisions, you’d be correct. The most obvious is the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, which overruled 100 years of previous Court decisions asserting that Indians were not eligible for US Citizenship. The 1924 Act was never even challenged in Federal Court.
2025 is the year Congress will finally clean up the extravagent, ahistorical interpretation of 14A. The ambiguity will be put to rest — as is Congress’ proper role under the Constitution. Why would you assume SCOTUS would try to interfere or undermine that role?
How do we as a nation deal with a federal judiciary populated by leftist judges trained in law schools by leftist professors to use law, including the practice of judging, to effect change in the direction of their leftist beliefs? In particular, how do we deal with such judges at a time when the citizenry, through the electoral process, has selected a President who pledged to remove illegal aliens invited in by the prior administration?
I have always wondered why s@@tlibs have such a fetish for illegal aliens, criminals and general misfits (not in their own neighborhoods, of course). Don’t expect an answer and calling me a ‘nazi’ isn’t a reply.
antonio
My impression is that white supremacy was a bipartisan consensus up through the mid-1960s. The Repub-Dem political divide was over chattal slavery, the legal ability to own other people, not how they should be treated as free Americans.
The 1960s was a defining moment, with Southern white supremacists digging their heels in to preserve Jim Crow law and culture. At roughly the same time in the Southwest, Americans of Mexican origin began to stand up against discrimination. Hordes of illegal immigrants from Mexico began swarming the border states.
At that point, Latino immigrant lawyers adopted an aggressive strategy of accusing white racism on any attempt to rigorously enforce the existing law. To argue against numbers, not ethnicity, was easily dismissed using more emotional accusations.
Over time, liberal white guilt over past discrimination against Latinos became expressed as unqualified support for illegal immigration and immigrants. I think this is how we got to the hideous excesses of the Biden Admin.
@Anonymous
The constituency of useful idiots, maybe, but we largely got the excesses from the modern left because their representatives are a regime that is part of a larger global regime hell bent on tyranny. That’s kind of all there is to it for me. Again, the excerpt presented by the Professor here is just more partisan horse excrement , IMO.
If the courts rule prudently and within the confines of the law and the constitution there should be plenty of harmony between branches. When they overstep those boundaries they run the risk of being deemed as irrelevant by the two elected branches of government. Jefferson made this clear when he was President as did Jackson. Justice Marshall was very wise in how he handled these crises in that he did not make rulings that demanded the executive respond to their rulings. He would often punt to maintain the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of the executive. If the damage to the court’s legitimacy is to be done, it will be effected by the courts themselves. Trump will be judged as to his job performance in the next midterms. The judiciary will never be held to that level of scrutiny hence they have a tightrope they must walk. If the justices lose their balance, they deserve to be ignored.
Sure looks like his statement calls out just the Executive Branch without taking any ownership of the actions and words of the Judicial branches overreach. I’m sure the Judicial views themselves flawless.
These sage words from the judge belong in opinion piece in a journal or newspaper. We don’t need this sort of pontificating from a man in a black robe. Judges should rule on the cases before them in accordance with the law – that’s it. As others have pointed out, where was the judicial opprobrium during the prior president’s term? Consider the wildly illegal attempts to turn billions upon billions of dollars in loan guarantees into grants, AFTER being overruled by the Supreme Court.
I totally agree. Has any previous POTUS, lets say Obama as an example, encountered lawsuit after lawsuit for deporting millions? Where was the judicial then? It seems to me the LAW needs to be applied in all cases. We are at the point where applying the law is a blurry subject and judges are ruling with their feelings or political view rather than the constitution. Talk about how wrong it is to suggest impeaching judges? Democrats are the champions of impeachment. We don’t need lectures, we need judicial judges that recognize that Trump was elected by the people to do exactly what he’s doing. Even POTUS appears to be succumbing to the left. We don’t want Trump’s 4 years to be wasted in the courts. We want him to succeed. Illegal aliens were let in by the Millions thru Biden’s open borders. What’s illegal about deporting them? Especially those that have a criminal record? Why has interpreting the law become so convoluted?
Wilkinson calls for ‘mutual respect” between branches and then solely attacks the Executive, neglecting to mention the insanity of a US District Judge ordering planes in international airspace to return to the US mid-flight, telling the President he must return a criminal alien from a Salvadoran jail in which country the individual is a citizen, and threatening contempt for clearly defined constitutional Article 2 actions. The actions threating impeachment of the district judge came from the third branch of government, members of Congress.
Not seeing much “mutual” respect from the judicial branch.
Heh? The Professor missed the mark on this one, it smacks of his stating, at the time, Biden’s inaugural speech was one of the most ‘moving he’d ever heard’. I fail to see how Robert’s statement isn’t simply more activism/weaponization from the bench nonsense. He quite summarily states as fact that the administration is lawless with no further scrutiny or explanation, then goes on to whine about delegitimizing the courts, and yet we had crickets when the problem was created in the first place? Make it make sense, because this is pathetic.
What is this mind blindness on the part of generational liberals? The rest of us are doing our damndest to use our votes to right the ship. For every breach we shore up, blind ‘classical liberals’ drill two more holes out of reticence toward the party and lack of self-awareness of their OWN elitist mentalities, however tangential.
Unbelievable, and I’ve had just about enough of opinions from coastal (and usually wealthy) ‘intellectuals’ who have no connection whatsoever to the communities most impacted by this madness and frankly don’t know their a**es from a hole in the ground beyond their own institutionalization, and very tired of the contradictory pivots.
Sorry, Wilkinson, not Roberts.
What does it mean to “facilitate”? Does it mean “to make possible” Garcia’s return if opportunity exists? or Does it mean to actively attempt to get him back? … Can the Administration change the basis for it’s actions while he is still being held?
This is a problem created by the Supreme Court when it chose not to define “facilitate.” Sauer in his brief stated exactly what the Executive Branch understood it to mean: removing domestic barriers to entry if an alien presented himself at the border. He cited an ICE manual that defined this in very clear terms. By leaving this unclear, the Supreme Court empowered the lower courts to take a different view, and here we are.
The whole issue really boils to the degree of due process required to deport an illegal alien. Are there varying degrees of due process? Is an “in-person” hearing required? Is there an automatic right of appeal from an administrative decision to the federal courts? Is due process even required, based on the original meaning (did the members of the Convention intend for due process to only be applied to those here legally)?
We either live under the Constitution or we forego the Rule of Law and descend into anarchy.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. … Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.” (John Adams)
#. Yes, there are varying degrees of the process due. For illegal entry what is due is a request to produce documents that show legal entry, visa and passport. The admin has done that. It needn’t be done one person by one person. It’s unreasonable and a burden to immigration , judicial, econ of the US. Millions is unreasonable.
What the admin is failing to show is an invasion of illegal entries and a list of murdered citizens, raped citizens and human trafficking, kidnappings, abducted minors. These grievous crimes the democrats have fostered and planned to overwhelm the immigration system with strategic forethought. This , SCOTUS, is verifiable treason.
As an academic exercise this is the case at hand, and this exercise has heinous American blood on its hands. It’s national security and the Trump admin is wholly within its duties in protecting the United States and citizens. It is nothing less.
Thanks for the response. I agree that due process can be variable based on legal status. If only Congress could pass some legislation that outlines the requirements and eliminates any appeal rights. EO’s, as we have seen, have a limited shelf life and are subject to innumerable delays.
We have already seen ICE jail US citizens after they have been presented with proof of citizenship.
OK the Supreme Court wants a little time to review etc. But it must respect and uphold the Presidents Authority Article II and must stop these Left Wing Lawfare groups and law suits and Left Wing Unqualifies DEM Judges. They need to put a stop this constant Judge shopping, Appeals, and running to the Supreme Court. Many of these cases have been found in favor of Trump Admin. in the end but its time consuming and that is what the DEMS/Left want.
Supreme Court must quickly rule on this case and stop these Lawsuits protecting Illegals, Gangs, Murders etc. So quickly hear this case and it should allow the Trump Admin. to proceed and as well stop these ACLU etc suits,
@Anonymous
We can hope. 🤷🏽♂️
Where in Article II does it mention immigration?
The Law, as represented by the Courts, is now an absolute joke. It is a game of agenda, played by black robed despots driven by their own personal opinions. As a result, Justice lies mortally wounded, near death, without hope. The time has come for the people of good conscience, character and integrity to send a message to the Judiciary that we have lost respect for the Law, as practiced, that we demand that it return to the service of Justice, and that we have no intention to obey or comply until it does. The Law has no power over the populace when the populace refuses to grant that power. The Supreme Court, and its subsidiaries, are merely like the Wizard of Oz, ruling behind a curtain of artificial authority until that curtain is drawn back. We see behind the curtain now and we choose to tell the Wizard that his days are done.
While i understand what this judge points out, NONE of it seems to apply the other way around. The Biden Administration was the lawless administration. Facilitating the mass influx of “immigrants” and paying for it with tax payer funds was the issue. While im well aware of the “check and balance” ie, the election, people need to go to jail! Sadly, due to one of the presidents powers he abused, pardons, no such thing will happen and i honestly believe THAT was the bigger chasm created then anything Trump could every do including “deporting en masse” even still if one was an American by mistake!
President Trump cares about the nation much more than Biden and the judiciary. Continue to be the “principled/nice” guy and bad things will happen. Every once in a while, even those deemed “superheroes” are called on to kill( hyperbolic). Our nation was declining faster than people seem to realize and now Trump wants to fix everything using his constitutional authority and ALL OF A SUDDEN, here come the “rule of law” folks demanding the constitution be followed all while NOT following said constitution during the regime! I CAN NOT WITH YOU PEOPLE!
Laken Riley could not be reached for comment.
# nor Jocelyn Nungaray and Rachel Morin among 1000s of others.
Judge Wilkinson’s advice is akin to scolding the kid that got hit, and hit back. Step back and look at some of the crazy decisions these judges are making and that are being overturned. The most egregious ones are consistently coming from the same judges. Barring a couple of scenarios, the administration has abided by these rulings and waited for the process to play out.
The double standards in place are appalling. When one branch oversteps their bounds they get lauded as heroes. When the other one does they are enemies of the state.
I agree that the branches should work together in addressing these complex issues, however that requires both sides to play by the same rules.
“ … by dent of custom …”
Dint, not dent
The “denting” of customs is unusual but applies as well.
so when an army invades the USA…we have to go to court to remove them?
Exactly! The courts, judges, and now the SCORUS have reach the level of absurdity.
guyventner: at 9:35 AM
You are absolutely on to something! We need to ‘Declare War’ of the Invaders.
There is no codified requirement which states that a War must be declared upon a Nation State,
A declared War with “Foreign Invaders at Large” is possible, and admissible to Congress for approval.
It takes care of a few problems immediately:
1. Trump’s use of the War Powers Act (vindicated)
2. The expansion of Our boarders [annexation of North (Canada & Greenland) and South (Mexico & Beyond)]
3. Bringing back Conscription to a rouge & lazy generation. Mandating ROTC on all Campuses.
4. Rounding up Treasonist (rouge Lawyers and Professors)
5. Legally Shooting the Enemy when you see the white’s of their eyes on U.S. sovereign soil (provided you are an enlisted Soldier).
6. …
7. …
8. …
Oh lord please let the above comment be sarcastic.
Nope: Courts have very little say so in declaring a War. Countries and Citizens around the World are declaring “It’s an Invasion” “It’s the Great Replacement” It’s a Religious Political Ethnic Coup” … there is no time left to be ‘sarcastic’.
Here in the U.S. it is a Multi-National-Invasion of At-Large Invaders pouring into the Country that some call ‘Asylum Immigrants’ (Illegal or Legal). Face it, It’s a War, and the Barbarians are now inside the Gates. Cartels are Armies, Traffickers are the Forward Units (Of all Foreign Nationalities).
“Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies” – They use Guns of Fentanyl, Germs of Covid, and the Steel of Technology against Us.
We Are At War, The Call To Arms Is Now. Trump should immediately declare War and send the war-proclamation to Congress.
(He may have had a better chance on Day-One of his 2nd Administration), but there’s no time better than the present.
Drop Ukraine, Drop the Middle East, Drop the EU, reorganize the Military to the Forward Positions of the North American Continent, establish and protect the perimeter. Found a new republic of North America.
‘Never Forget’ – You’re an American 🇺🇸
These Idiots in; Government, Wall Street, The Federal Reserve, The Networks, etc., etc., the whole Cabal,
Are playing: ‘A Game of Who can make the most Money’. while the Prosperity and Welfare of the Country’s Citizens go down the tubes.
It’s a War of The Sane’s Reality vs The Self-Aggrandizement of the Establishment.
It’s happening in the U.S., in Canada, in Mexico, in the Small and Island Nations, …
It’s not Civil War, it’s a Continental War – The Northern America Continent.
and Others are pilling in from; South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, …
🇺🇸
This is how the (real) Canadians Feel:
Maxime Bernier: Trump’s Tariffs, Mass Immigration, and the Oncoming Canadian Revolution
It’s hard to overstate how dystopian and threatening Canada has become. An update from longtime Canadian government official Maxime Bernier.
By: Tucker Carlson – TCN ~ April 16th 2025
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-maxime-bernier
This is how the (real) Irish Feel:
Conor McGregor’s Presidential Bid, Tariffs, Erasing Irish Culture, and Deporting Rosie O’Donnell
Conor McGregor says the Irish people are intentionally being erased by mass migration. He’s considering a run for president of Ireland to stop it.
By: Tucker Carlson – TCN ~ April 18th 2025
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-conor-mcgregor
This is a WAR, like it or not. And it’s here on the North American Continent.
And Real-Americans are feeling it. 🇺🇸
This is how the (real) Canadians Feel:
Maxime Bernier: Trump’s Tariffs, Mass Immigration, and the Oncoming Canadian Revolution
It’s hard to overstate how dystopian and threatening Canada has become. An update from longtime Canadian government official Maxime Bernier.
By: Tucker Carlson – TCN ~ April 16th 2025
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-maxime-bernier
This is how the (real) Irish Feel:
Conor McGregor’s Presidential Bid, Tariffs, Erasing Irish Culture, and Deporting Rosie O’Donnell
Conor McGregor says the Irish people are intentionally being erased by mass migration. He’s considering a run for president of Ireland to stop it.
By: Tucker Carlson – TCN ~ April 18th 2025
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-conor-mcgregor
This is a WAR, like it or not. And it’s here right-now on the North American Continent.
And Real-Americans are feeling it. 🇺🇸
#. Do you mean the arms are already in?
so when Democrats IMPORTED criminal aliens by the millions…where were these judges?
This is NATIONAL EMERGENCY…where millions of illegals are in the country!
REMOVE THEM ALL…and NO THEY can’t each get a court case!
TOO F’N BAD!
Personally, I believe that Chief Roberts has each foot in a different pond, one being his job as a Justice and the other in his ruminations of a favorable legacy.
Roberts is a Democrats…has always been a Democrat…and a TRAITOR to the USA!
Agreed, and that makes his legacy ‘weak’
Correct. The left is unforgiving. No deviations are allowed. Doesn’t this poor man understand this simple fact?