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.
This SCOTUS decision is a major defeat for Trump’s lawless effort to rush out a rendition flight before the courts could act.
It is also a HUGE signal from the court that they really are willing to go head to head with Trump on his abuses.
The decision was rendered at 1:00am. This timing is highly unusual.
Also the decision was rushed out before Alito had time to write his dissent. This is even MORE unusual.
The order notes that Alito dissented and that his statement will follow.
Reading the tea leaves, it looks like Alito assumed that the order would not be made until he had written his dissent, in the hope that he could take his sweet time and delay things sufficiently for the administration to get the deportees in the air.
The majority called his bluff.
The majority is clearly pi$$ed.
By majority, you mean illegal alien invaders.
Research the law and find that the history of American immigration law reveals that they could not be admitted to become citizens when they did.
Research the law and find that it is a crime to cross the border illegally.
Research the law to find that persons must be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.; for example, they must be subject to being summoned for jury duty to enjoy birthright citizenship.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14 Amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
There is a sentence in the Declaration of Independence complaining about King George’s interference in immigration and naturalization.
“He [King George] has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither,”
Apparently the Founding Fathers were annoyed that the king prevented migration and tried to stop the naturalization of immigrants.
Trump is doing exactly what King George did, and the Founders obviously found this objectionable.
You are so right.
The American Founders established and reiterated their immigration law and Acts which were never licitly abrogated and were in full force and effect on January 1, 1863.
To wit,
_________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 (four iterations for maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
The problem is Judges not following letter of law and Constitution. Society only functions with honest judges and stable laws. Any judge who can not rule one way and comment he does not like having to do so should be removed from office. For far too long we have had many supporting the idea the meaning of things changes over time. Well it should not and Congress should be called upon to fix any law that no longer acts properly.
Just as I predicted, as soon as Turley writes anything close to seemingly in support of anything contrary to Trump’s agenda the rabid MAGA lunatics start to turn on him and immiately defend the indefensible or keep showing their ignorance. It’s pretty sad how quickly MAGA turns on some of their supporters.
What Law is the Supreme Court reading, or is it partially, politically, arbitrarily, and illicitly legislating or amending?
Has adjudication become Rule under a King Roberts Juristocracy?
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
And the President shall judge and adjudicate exclusively the nature, shape, and character of that exercise of executive power.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
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 . . . And in case any alien, so ordered to depart, shall be found at large within the United States after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the President to reside therein, or having obtained such license shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States.
An Act Respecting Alien Enemies
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alienenemies.
Despite the growing counter-constitutional movement, both decisions show how the courts are functioning appropriately and expeditiously in sorting out these difficult cases.
Some of us have a longer memory than you apparently.
There was a growing counter-constitutional movement that began in early 2020, grew exponentially and continues today. Where was SCOTUS with emergency orders when the Feds were outright tyrants sequestering Americans during COVID, against our wishes, against our rights, against our bodies, against our freedoms, and against the science?
Sorry, SCOTUS – you’re part of the problem.
#NeverForget
Might the good professor consider addressing the frequency that the judge is named Boasberg? ‘Respecting the process’…
I’d like first to show the duplicity of the judge’s homily where he says “…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.”: yet continues with
“…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.” Which I surmise is accusatory to the executive and in particular to President Trumps desire to rectify the illegal immigrant invasion facilitated by the prior administration. I had to laugh at [sparingly reply]: yea right, look at any ruling of recent and you’ll find judges a-plenty opining.
My opinion, since the ‘Rehnquist Court’ the courts and with more specificity the Supreme Court have lost trust to be impartial and abide by written law and not inject their personal believes in their decision. It’s got to the point that a Supreme Court judge can’t or won’t answer a basic biological question, [that’s not political right?].
Judge Wilkinson neglects to include the third branch in his diatribe and the Democrats continuing assault on the Courts, just one example will do, Senator Schumer standing outside the Supreme Court threatening two of the Justices.
Wisdom of yesteryear by H.A.L. Fisher “History of Europe” 1935:
“One intellectual excitement has, however, been denied me. Men wiser, and more learned than I, have discerned in history a plot, a rhythm, a predetermined pattern. These harmonies are concealed from me. I can see only one emergency following upon another as wave follows upon wave, only one great fact with respect to which, since it is unique, there can be no generalization, only one safe rule for the historian: that he should recognize in the development of human destinies the play of the contingent and the unforeseen.”
Well, it’s a busy weekend, but let me just put this out there—
Congress, by constitutional power, can create new courts.
Instead of shipping all these Venezuelans and others back to the U.S.,
Why cannot,- in this 21st century, Congress create an Uber-style , on-the-go, special court of limited jurisdiction, to be set up in a U.S. TERRITORY such as Puerto Rico or American Samoa, to try these “due process” deportation cases?
If Garcia wins, we owe him a return to the contiguous states. If he loses, he can be moved to other than El Salvador.
This whole immigration thing beoming a joke. Take a look at this mama complaining that returning to her homeland means that she cannot “live her dream” ??????????
This is the garbage that has warranted “asylum” to literally millions of illegal immigrants? ?????????????
https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW748717042025RP1/?chan=home
LIn, moving court to U.S. Territories would be a means to circumvent the Constitution. It seems you don’t want immigrants to have the rights they are afforded to them while they reside there.
What you are suggesting is similar to what happened in Guantanamo. There are already courts created specifically for immigration cases. The problem is they are overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases and Republicans and Trump passed up the chance to fix that when the bipartisan legislation reforming and increasing the number of immigration judges was shot down by Trump. They don’t want to given any of them due process, they want to kick out all immigrants, illegal and legal. They agenda closely follows that of the “Great Replacement Theory”. The fear of whites being slowly outnumbered by minorities and losing their “traditional” dominance. This became apparent when even legal immigrants have been turned away at the border when they return from overseas visits and students having their visas revoked without explanation.
Wow George, just amazing, within eight minutes of my post, you have already composed and posted a response? Do you hide in the wings to jump whenever my name appears?
First of all, Guantanamo is NOT the United States nor a territory thereof, so your entire comment/comparison/reasoning is out the door.
Second, the CONCERN in court rulings against the DOJ/Trump administration is about DUE PROCESS according to U.S. JURISPRUDENCE, –not location. So a return to an AMERICAN COURT and its jurisprudence is reasonably warranted. That’s the whole point, n’est ce pas?
Third, I have no problem with courts stopping further shipments to El Salvador until such DUE PROCESS is achieved.
I narrowed my premise to those already in El Salvador and proffered an alternative approach, did you notice?
I fondly recall Obama’s first official act as president was an EO to close Gitmo .. . but it didn’t work out.
LIn, waiting in the wings? Nobody can respond to you within a certain amount of time? Weird.
Guantaname IS a U.S territory. It’s under US military control is it not? Holding court in Puerto Rico or places like Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc. won’t apply as being under the jurisdiction of the Constitution because they don’t have the proper representation( having full voting privileges in Congress).
I would have though you would know such a distinction.
Your altenative approach removes court jurisprudence. Operating outside Constitutional boundaries is not a solution.
George, here is the website for the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico
https://www.prd.uscourts.gov/
“I would have though you would know such a distinction. “
George,, here is the web link for the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico.
https://www.prd.uscourts.gov/
“I would have though you would know such a distinction.”
thanks.
goergie, I am following this thread, and your intelligence is only vastly exceeded by your ignorance.
There is no U.S. court in guatanamo, and these cases are heard in stateside U.S. courts (boasberg). Guantamo is within the sovereign country of Cuba, but for the American military base. that’s the point I think she was making. you are such a clown.
and yea, she posted her comment at 1.52 and you immediately pounced because you had the whole thing written and posted 8 minutes later.
Geo says, “Lin—holding court in Puerto Rico or places like Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc. won’t apply as being under the jurisdiction of the Constitution because they don’t have the proper representation( having full voting privileges in Congress).
LIn replies with a simple, “George,, here is the web link for the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico.
https://www.prd.uscourts.gov/
It doesn’t get any funnier than this, folks.
“Congress, by constitutional power, can create new courts”
Is it not a reasonable and defensible corollary that Congress can also disband an inferior court that it previously created? If that is the case, even if there is no clear Constitutional authority for Congress to dismiss a errant Federal judge individually, it should be possible to disband a court that has such a judge (which would presumably simultaneously disenfranchise all of the judges assigned to it), then create a new court, and allow the President to appoint its judges (omitting the offender). That would be a clumsy process, and require cooperation and good faith between the legislative and executive branches of a kind that has become exceedingly rare, but it might be one possible solution. If nothing else, serious discussion about it might put some of the self-aggrandizing jerks currently on the Federal bench on notice to mend their ways.
(I’m coming back and forth to the laptop while baking, thanks for reading my comment.)
What you put out for contemplation is indeed worthy of contemplation; but the consequential thought of having sequential executive administrations “disband” previous administration’s courts, -or create new courts, with acquiescing action in a partisan Congress, seems to temper that thought.
I think the scenario presented by the Trump “en masse” deportations to El Salvador is a new issue, and my thought was a muse addressing that immediately pressing scenario, –while believing that ultimately Congress may act a little more proactively/creatively instead of reactively.
“the consequential thought of having sequential executive administrations “disband” previous administration’s courts, -or create new courts, with acquiescing action in a partisan Congress, seems to temper that thought.”
I agree that concept seems scary now, but what could the Founders have intended? It has always seemed somewhat strange to me that they specified impeachment as the method of removal for only the President. I speculate that was at least in part because of the concentration of power in the hands of the individual holding that office. The reasoning may well have been that the power of an individual Congressman was so much more dilute that it was sufficient to let the voters take care of removal for Representatives at two year intervals, and, in the case of Senators, prior to the 17th Amendment, the State legislature could do the same by whatever process it saw fit to employ. That leaves a rather large vacuum regarding how they envisioned that judges could be removed. I find it inconceivable that, considering the evident wisdom about the potential that political office holds to corrupt individuals that is reflected in other parts of the Constitution, that they were simultaneously so naive as to assume that SCOTUS justices and inferior court judges could be appointed for life, and all of them would retain their integrity until they retired or died. Something important is missing there. I strongly believe that we had better find out what that something is, and provide it, before it results in the end of our Republic.
1. congress would never have the votes sufficient to make such courts. there are simply too many uniparty swampy people who want to see Trump fail and raise their own stock. And many of them are swampy so called Republicans. Who only see crisis as just another way to gain more power…similar to how this supreme court and the lower courts are demonstrating. has nothing to do with “protecting due process” jazzz…it’s simply a crisis they can develop to thwart the power of the president and thus have more influence…that is how DC operates. we should not be so nieve to believe this has changed simply because a majority so called republican party has both house and senate
2. all this would accomplish is to provide just another court of judges with the power to establish that illegal aliens have due process rights. spoiler: our laws make it crystal clear that non US citizens here illegally have no such rights. Consider the case of the columbia uni protestor as recent example: a legal visa holder…is deported..there is no due process in that narrow case, because he has no citizenship rights. Due process isn’t a dirty word, but it does have specific legal meaning. Just because you arrive here on a flight from london, traveling on holiday does not offer you these rights. You can and will be deported for any reason that the President determines. This needs to be clear because that is what these courts and black robes are trying to conjure up…that somehow a non us citizen who has illegally entered this country in violation of clear law, has a right as some special right. But our laws do not contain such language and have made is excplicity clear due process rights are solely afforded to those who are here legally, and that they are also US citizens.
these people are not here legally.
these peoople do not have due process rights.
they are not US citizens.
and we have to stop pretending they have some magic unicorn protection that affords them the same rights as US citizens. They do not!
we don’t need to set up special courts to prove this out. We simply need to follow the law, or fix it and ratify a new constitutional amendment to “correct” the constitution. Spoiler: never going to happen! and thank GOD for that.
what we do need to do is give our support to this President for deporting these illegals out of our country, every single one, and if the courts continue to attempt to get involved and slow that down, then these court judges must be impeached
clearly that is the answer to this grotesque malpractice of law these black robes are deploying.
God Bless America
The judge is saying “this is bad and the Executive Branch has to change.” I believe this is bad, but the Judicial Branch must step in. The Supreme Court needs to stop pussy-footing and make some hard calls on the powers of District Judges and the power of the President.
This is all a smoke screen!
Keep your eye on the ball. The Democrats real problem is DOGE. As the Waste, Fraud and Abuse is exposed, the Democrats money laundering operation is in jeopardy. Without the grift, the Democrats can’t survive.
The judicial branch acted flagrantly, politically, and partially, disregarded fundamental law, and high criminally usurped and exercised the power of the executive branch.
The president exclusively holds complete dominion over the exercise of executive power.
No legislation or adjudication may usurp or exercise any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
“John Marshall [Roberts] has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
– President Andrew Jackson, 1832
And president Jackson is seen by historians as one of the worst presidents. Only Donnie Von Schitzenpantz will be remembered as the worst.
And Doris Kearns Goodwin is an admitted plagiarist in full disrepute, while Michael Benchloss is featured on the communist propaganda apparatus, “PBS NewsHour.”
And Wally?
Well, Wally has no bona fides to impeach.
C’est la vie!
Dear Prof Turley,
I’ve done the math. If Joe Biden ‘invited’ 20 million ‘illegal aliens’ into the country (*citation needed!), it will take a fleet of 737 airplanes flying around the clock about 10 years for Trump to deport them all.
It’s a big world. There is no such thing as an ‘illegal alien’ (home is where the heart is.). The closest thing we have is Elon Musk, who is half Martian .. . and 1/2 American.
*TDS is dead.
20 million! You need to take 2 rounds of Movi-Prep whitewater so full of it.
Trump may be exaggerating a bit. .. for effect.
‘We’ fain would hope thou dost jest.
TDS is no longer applicable. The threat is now real. ‘Someone’ gave that monkey a gun. .. and a EO pen!
That someone was criminally insane Joe ‘genocide’ Biden, the DNC, their media surrogates .. . and severe TDS afflicted supporters (like you.).
I would remind you that all the unconstitutional powers the Trump monkey Apostle now claims were provided to him by Bush/Cheney (see AUMF 2001), Obama (see NDAA 2011) and imbecilic Biden’s military involvement in Ukraine and Israel. Where were you then?
[note. I consider Obama the linchpin in this dystopia – Obama codified Bush/Cheney’s outrageous abuses (e.g. ‘we tortured some folks’) and set the foundation, in stone, for future abuses by Biden .. . and now Trump.]
It’s directly because of them Trump can now claim the powers of the Unitary Executive Authority and designate anybody (including U.S. citizens) anywhere a ‘terrorist’ and ship them to a hell hole in El Salvador (or Gitmo) . .. without any due process whatsoever.
*’We’ need new blood. .. I don’t want to hear from your usual suspects @ the DNC, their media whores or Obama et el.
“and a EO pen!”
You prefer the Biden autopen regime, where anonymous staff members, singly or individually, are granted de facto Potus power up to and including access to the nuclear football, with zero identification or accountability?
If you can’t impeach crooked Joe Biden, who can you impeach?
“If you build it, [they] will come.”
– “The Voice,” Field of Dreams
__________________________________
If you demolish it, they will go.
If you demolish the welfare state of illegal hiring, “free stuff” and “free status,” they will go home.
Call it “The Long March” in reverse.
“If you demolish the welfare state of illegal hiring, “free stuff” and “free status,” they will go home. ”
I have been saying that for many years. My question is whether that would completely end the attempts by adversaries such as China to send immigrants acting as CCP agents to spy on and undermine crucial parts of our society. I suppose at minimum, those agents would no longer have a huge volume of other immigrants to serve them as camouflage.
Trump is going to have to make a tough decision. Because of forum shopping, the courts have the power to block him, appeals take time and its still a toss up whether they get it right. Because of republican desire to preserve the filibuster, Congress, even with a slight majority, is incapable of acting. If Harris had won the election, the filibuster would have been gone. The left plays the long game but they would not have squandered that opportunity. Trump is going to have to forge ahead, with or without, the courts. Congress and the court system were incapable of stopping the mess we’re in now, so Trump has no other choice. He needs to realize that we are already fighting a civil war, it might be cold civil war but the battle has already started and Trump is losing. He needs to use any rationality he can, war powers act, insurrection act, whatever it takes. He is not going to win this one by following the rules.
“He is not going to win this one by following the rules.”
You might be correct in the short term, but in the long term, what you suggest is also a failing proposition. Unless his plan is to seize power permanently by coup, it is inevitable that before very many years go by, there will be again be a Democrat in the White House, who will fully use every rule-breaking precedent set by Trump to inflict maximum damage to the Republic. It is a conundrum. Personally, if we are doomed anyway, I would prefer that we fight that outcome while maintaining our principles. If the attitude is “win at any cost”, we do not significantly differ from our adversaries. YMMV.
Where are our men of abilities? Why do they not come forth and save their country? George Washington
We definitely need some new blood. ..
*When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
Judge Wilkerson: “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.”
The wise judge sees where this is leading…to a clash between executive and judiciary that will hurt all.
What he is not in a position to say is that this could have been avoided if Roberts had a spine and his obvious intelligence had been adorned with wisdom. The massive iceberg can be dimly glimpsed in the fog and the captain orders full steam ahead to keep to a schedule.
Wilkerson thinks history will ultimately favor the judiciary if the collision occurs.
I am not so sure. Just now the shopped judges and the well-funded organizations seeking these TROs seem like an arm of ANTIFA out to destroy the entire government they have infested.
It likely isn’t a coincidence that we have seen radical jurists in Europe disrupting and overturning elections, banning and prosecuting popular candidates, punishing speech and, in general, corroding actual democracy in favor of an inner few, much as has been done in many openly totalitarian countries. What international organizations may be behind this?
In this crisis the judiciary has foolishly aligned itself with gangs, killers, radicals and freaks and against the American people.
The public likely will stand behind the President if it becomes necessary and that necessity is drawing nearer with every stupid, power-grabbing court decision.
I hear what you are saying professor, but I believe that in any intervention through the courts, it is the courts themselves who must first ask if Congress objects to the actions of the administration. it’s pretty clear that both the House and the Senate support the interpretations of law and actions of the President and the executive branch.
1. FRCP MANDATES a bond be posted. Not a single district judge in Trump’s numerous cases complied with that. Not even one. With silence from the Supremes.
2. I would like to know how that 2 AM Saturday hearing went along? Did they actually attend in person? Where? Over the phone? Parties involved, too?
It gets insane.
The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The singular enemy of the American thesis, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights has been and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
You can tell right away Turley slipped on a banana peel, when the Leftards who populate this forum agree with him! It is the courts who have, and continue to overstep their jurisdiction’s! And it is the courts who are being “Lawless”
Nope. Turley is getting to the point where he recognizes that he cannot defend Trump’s actions, even when the Supreme Court rules against him.
Turley is running out of excuses. With Trump trashing the economy and his alleged “deals” which have not been disclosed (likely because it’s BS).
The Supreme Court is very likely to shut down Trump’s use the the AEA and Turley is hedging on that to be the case.