This backlash follows U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s ruling last week, in which he issued a temporary restraining order preventing Trump from utilizing the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals he has identified as members of a terrorist organization.
The ruling has drawn intense criticism, with some advocating for Boasberg’s impeachment. Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett characterized the decision as a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent.
“What is particularly alarming about Boasberg’s restraining order is that it contradicts the Supreme Court, which evaluated Harry Truman’s application of the Alien Enemies Act after World War II,” Jarrett stated during a segment on the network earlier this week. “The Supreme Court determined that not only is the act constitutional under the law, but it is also beyond the scope of judicial review by any judge.”
“When a president invokes this act, no judge or court can intervene—not even the Supreme Court—because Congress has granted the president exclusive political authority to make decisions regarding national security and foreign policy,” Jarrett elaborated. “As a lower court judge, Boasberg is obligated to adhere to the Supreme Court’s ruling and refrain from interference. Yet, he is audaciously disregarding established Supreme Court precedent.”
In a column published online last week, Jarrett pointed out that a prior Supreme Court ruling affirmed the constitutionality of the Act and established that federal courts lack the jurisdiction to intervene when a president invokes it.
“The Alien Enemies Act allows a president to order the arrest and removal of ‘alien enemies’ without a court hearing during a declared war or in response to any ‘predatory incursion’ against the United States,” Jarrett noted.
A predatory incursion is generally characterized as an entry into the United States for reasons that oppose the nation’s interests or legal framework. This terminology provides the president with significant discretion in fulfilling his primary responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the populace, he further remarked, adding:
n 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Truman’s use of the AEA and ruled that the law itself was constitutional (Ludecke v. Watkins, 33 US 160). Importantly, the high court stated that a president’s decision under the Act “precludes judicial review of the removal order.” In other words, a judge cannot second-guess the president. The court explained, “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 ruling embraced what is called the “political question doctrine.” That is, the federal courts may not intervene in presidential decision-making that is inherently political in nature, such as the conduct of foreign affairs and national security. By analogy, we do not permit judges to halt drone strikes or shut down intelligence operations.
President Trump is employing all legal measures available to remove enemy aliens who represent an ongoing threat, Jarrett stated. He emphasized that the American populace largely supports the mass deportation of illegal immigrants, particularly those identified as criminal or terrorist threats.
“Over two hundred years ago, Congress recognized such dangers, which is why it enacted a comprehensive law that grants the President exclusive authority to expel enemy aliens. A century and a half later, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this statute, declaring, ‘This Alien Enemy Act has remained the law of the land, virtually unchanged since 1798,’” he further remarked.
Jarrett concluded by asserting, “Lower court judges are obligated to adhere to Supreme Court precedents. Therefore, Judge Boasberg’s hasty ruling is legally incorrect.”
