Staff Reports
A landmark victory for President Trump came from the Supreme Court recently, demonstrating once again that the judicial branch can be a formidable ally against rogue judges with agendas of their own. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law that, while as old as the Constitution itself, has suddenly become relevant in the face of the Tren de Aragua gang. This ruling overturned U.S. Judge James Boasberg’s attempt to interrupt this bold strategy to deport suspected gang members.
Judge Boasberg had previously issued a temporary order halting deportations under this wartime act, but the Supreme Court wasted no time in delivering a much-needed smackdown. The justices reminded Boasberg and all of America that the nation’s safety and the president’s authority cannot be usurped so easily. Legal scholars may want to take notes, because the Court’s decision sends a clear message: if you’re found to be aligned with criminal gangs, then don’t expect the red carpet treatment.
Judge Boasberg gets brutally slapped down by Supreme Court, which noted Democrat-appointed jurist ignored high court’s 1948 ruling on Alien Enemies Act and also should not have taken case in DC since plaintiffs were in Texas. It invalidated judge shopping. https://t.co/teN146D4BS
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) April 7, 2025
A central point from the ruling was the justices’ reaffirmation of a relatively straightforward principle—judges should stick to their lanes. The Court chided the lower judge for what can only be described as “judge shopping,” stating that the gang members held in Texas were not entitled to have their cases heard in the hallowed halls of Washington, D.C. Instead, they should answer for their alleged activities where they were actually detained. It seems that some are learning the hard way that the law has its boundaries.
Gang members’ lawyers, in a valiant bid to fight back against deportation, argued that their clients don’t fit the bill as “removable alien enemies.” However, the Supreme Court wasn’t interested in entertaining those arguments. Instead, they shifted the onus of these disputes back onto the proper avenue—the habeas corpus petitions. For those unfamiliar with legal jargon, that means no special treatment just because they hired some fancy lawyers to plead their case.
In the end, this Supreme Court ruling was not just an impressive win for Trump but also a win for the basic principles of law and order. With this ruling, the Court has made it clear—protecting the nation from criminal elements is not just a choice, it’s a constitutional responsibility. It’s a wake-up call for those who believe the law is a flexible set of guidelines rather than a steadfast foundation for American justice.
