Fox’s Jarrett Slams Judge’s ‘Troubling’ Move to Halt Deportation Flights
A recent decision by a federal judge to halt President Donald Trump’s deportation directive targeting Venezuelan gang members residing illegally in the U.S. has sparked outrage among conservatives. Legal experts warn that the ruling represents a concerning overreach of judicial authority.
The controversy stems from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s decision last week to issue a temporary restraining order, preventing Trump from employing the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals he has classified as part of a terrorist organization.
This ruling has drawn sharp criticism, with some even advocating for Boasberg’s removal from the bench. Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett condemned the move, arguing that it blatantly disregards established Supreme Court precedent.
“What’s so troubling about Boasberg’s restraining order is that he is defying the Supreme Court, which reviewed Harry Truman’s use of the Alien Enemies Act after World War II ended,” Jarrett explained during a Fox News segment. “The high court said that not only is the act constitutional under the law of the land, it is not subject to judicial review by any judge.”
Expanding on his analysis, Jarrett stated, “So when a president invokes it, no judge, no court can ever intervene—not even the Supreme Court—because Congress gave the president the exclusive power that is purely political to make decisions on national security and foreign policy.” He continued, “Boasberg is duty-bound, as a lower court judge, to follow the ruling of the highest court—the Supreme Court—and butt out. And yet, he is brazenly ignoring Supreme Court precedent.”
WATCH:
In a column published online last week, Jarrett pointed to past Supreme Court rulings affirming that the Act is constitutional and that federal courts lack authority to intervene when a president invokes it.
“The AEA permits a president to order the arrest and removal without a court hearing of ‘alien enemies’ whenever there is a declared war or any ‘predatory incursion’ perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the United States,” Jarrett wrote.
“A predatory incursion is broadly defined as entry into the U.S. for purposes that are contrary to the nation’s interests or laws. The language gives a president broad latitude in his core duty to protect the safety and security of the citizenry,” he elaborated, adding:
In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Truman’s use of the AEA and confirmed the law’s constitutionality in Ludecke v. Watkins (33 US 160). Crucially, the court determined that a president’s authority under the Act “precludes judicial review of the removal order.” Simply put, courts do not have the power to override the president’s decision. The ruling further clarified, “The very nature of the President’s power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion.”
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforced the “political question doctrine,” asserting that federal courts cannot interfere in presidential matters inherently political in nature, such as foreign affairs and national security. By comparison, judges are not permitted to halt military drone strikes or disrupt intelligence operations.
“President Trump is utilizing every tool that the law affords to evict enemy aliens who pose a constant threat,” Jarrett continued, emphasizing that the American public strongly favors mass deportations of illegal immigrants, particularly those deemed criminal or terrorist threats.
“More than two centuries ago, Congress well recognized such peril. That is precisely why it passed a broad law granting to the President the sole authority to evict enemy aliens. 150 years later, the Supreme Court upheld that statute when it said, ‘This Alien Enemy Act has remained the law of the land, virtually unchanged since 1798,'” he noted further.
Jarrett concluded: “Lower court judges are duty-bound to follow Supreme Court precedent. On that basis alone, Judge Boasberg’s precipitous ruling is wrong as a matter of law.”