Trump’s deportation wins are a rebuke to scheming lawyers and activist judges

President Donald Trump ran on the promise to fix what his predecessor broke. That is a tall order, given the copious calamities that Joe Biden wrought.    

At the top of the list was shutting down our southern border. Donald Trump accomplished it with lightning speed, putting an obvious lie to Biden’s claim that it couldn’t be done by executive fiat. Americans cheered.   

Then, Trump kicked into overdrive another promise to deport those who are in the U.S. illegally, particularly violent criminals and terrorist gang members. Democrats sprinted to the federal courts to defend the indefensible – not because they like thugs and terrorists, but because they despise Trump.

Their unscrupulous trick was to shop around until they found a liberal jurist to their liking. It worked like a charm.  

DEMOCRATS KNOW ‘JUDGE SHOPPING’ IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AND WRONG

Activist judges handed out restraining orders and injunctions like Halloween treats. The Trump-hating media, myopic as usual, celebrated with reckless abandon. But the confetti parade they threw for themselves was fleeting.  

In short order, district court judges found themselves bedeviled by reversals for mangling the law and abusing their authority. It was all so predictable.  

And it won’t stop. Whenever another lawsuit pops up – sometimes daily – it forces Trump’s Justice Department to play an interminable game of “wack-a-mole.”

For those trying to keep score, here are three of the most recent cases in this popular arcade attraction.

The Garcia Deportation Case

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was in the U.S. illegally, picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and given a one-way ticket to El Salvador from whence he came. Despite an early statement by a since-sidelined DOJ lawyer that his deportation was an “administrative error,” evidence to the contrary has since emerged.

SCOTUS MUST STOP LEFTIST JUDGES’ LAWLESS SABOTAGE OF TRUMP AGENDA

Compelling evidence exists that Garcia either is or was a member of the notorious MS-13 gang. According to Attorney General Pam Bondi, two different immigration courts in 2019 concurred but allowed him to stay conditionally. However, since that group is now a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, Garcia was subject to immediate arrest and expulsion. Any prior withholding order was nullified by the terror designation. 

Any dispute over Garcia’s gang status became irrelevant once he landed on Salvadoran soil. Why? Because reversing his deportation constitutes both a practical and a legal impossibility.  

Undeterred, if not unaware, federal District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to “effectuate” his return to the U.S. In doing so, she fails to comprehend that she has no jurisdiction over someone held in a foreign country inasmuch as she holds no power to tell a sovereign nation what to do.  

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in, offering Xinis a basic law school tutorial by reminding her that under our constitutional framework the president dictates foreign policy, not judges. The high court instructed her to give “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” It was a hint cloaked in a directive.  

Manifestly, the U.S. could attempt to exert some diplomacy to “facilitate Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador,” as the Supremes urged. But that is not the same thing as ordering his physical return to the U.S. The semantics are important, which the justices tried to subtly explain to Xinis, who nevertheless seems incurably obtuse.  

COURTROOM COUP: ENDING THE DISTRICT JUDGES’ WAR ON PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY

All of this is now moot. In his Monday meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of releasing a suspected terrorist onto the streets of his country, much less returning him to the U.S. Without referring to Xinis by name, he mocked the delusion that a judge might have some say in the matter.  

In a court hearing on Tuesday, Xinis continued to push forward, seemingly resolved to keep chasing her own tail in a circle. If she is determined to treat the Constitution as a collection of recommendations and the justices as a mere advisory board, her errant decisions will once again land on the steps of the highest court.  

I doubt that the outcome next time will be so tepid.

The Khalil Deportation Case                         

Mahmoud Khalil, a one-time graduate student and full-time Palestinian activist allegedly behind the violent protests at Columbia University, was arrested by ICE and is now being held in Louisiana pending deportation.    

Once again, his lawyers went “judge shopping” in New York but the wrongful maneuver forced the case to New Jersey, where Khalil was detained when his lawyers originally filed their habeas corpus petition (the right to challenge detention or deportation).  

DOES THE CONSTITUTION REALLY PROTECT COLUMBIA AGITATOR MAHMOUD KHALIL FROM DEPORTATION?

Meanwhile, a Louisiana immigration judge ruled that the government can, indeed, deport Khalil. This was an easy decision. Green card holders like Khalil are defined under U.S. law as “aliens.” They are not citizens. Their presence on our soil is a conditional privilege, not a right. Under law, an “alien” who endorses or promotes a designated terrorist organization such as Hamas can have his green card privilege revoked and be expelled.

The evidence is considerable that Khalil helped organize pro-Hamas uprisings on campus that involved disgusting antisemitism, vandalism, destruction of property, and physical attacks on Jewish students and law enforcement.   

Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked an expulsion provision in the immigration statute by stating that Khalil’s presence and support of Hamas is antithetical to our national security and foreign policy.  The Louisiana judge determined that this was legally sufficient for his deportation.  

Khalil won’t be boarding a plane out of the country quite yet. Legal wrangling over the First Amendment and other due process rights are still being waged in the New Jersey courtroom. Depending on the outcome, his case could also wind its way to the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant future.

MANY FEDERAL JUDGES ARE OVERSTEPPING THEIR POWER, BUT ‘IMPEACHMENT!’ IS NOT THE ANSWER

The TdA Deportations Case

The most legally ludicrous of rulings arose from the Trump administration’s mass deportation of members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), another designated terror organization. Under authority of the Alien Enemies Act, hundreds of violent criminals were arrested and jettisoned to prison in El Salvador.  

Liberal lawyers for five gang members still held in Texas flew like a bat out of hell to Washington, D.C., to do their usual “judge shopping.” It was no coincidence that the case landed in the lap of federal District Judge James Boasberg, who issued a preordained order to halt flights and turn around planes in midair.  

The absurdity of that order is self-evident. No judge has the authority to dictate the direction of travel beyond American airspace. Nor did it bother Boasberg that he had no jurisdiction over Texas litigants. Unrestrained, he proclaimed a nationwide injunction stopping all such deportations. This was well beyond his very limited district power.  

In a significant victory for Trump, the Supreme Court tossed out Boasberg’s erroneous rulings. The high court recognized that he should never have taken the case in the first place because it quite obviously belonged in Texas. In a broader sense, this was a stinging rebuke to lawyers everywhere who are addicted to “judge shopping” like it’s a half-off sale at Macy’s.  

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Not that the buying spree will stop.

Deprived by the Supreme Court of jurisdiction, Boasberg stubbornly clings to it. On Wednesday afternoon, he disclosed that he will move to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for failing to return the planes over which he had no authority… in a case that he wrongfully commandeered.

You can’t make this up.

It’s a shame that SCOTUS did not seize a golden opportunity to finally extinguish the abusive habit of district judges declaring universal injunctions that impact the entire nation. For decades, both liberal and conservative justices have openly criticized the practice. Ducking the issue yet again was gutless, and their failure to act only opened the door to more of it.

Sure enough, within days an Obama-appointed federal judge in Massachusetts issued an expansive order blocking Trump’s effort to end temporary legal status for more than half a million migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti. Never mind that Biden created the program by executive action, which means that Trump can terminate it with the same discretion. 

The Supreme Court is the ultimate backstop against scheming lawyers and activist judges who are all too anxious to impede Trump’s agenda for purely political reasons. It is time for the court to grow a backbone and end the gamesmanship.  

Until that happens, fans of “wack-a-mole” can enjoy the legal gymnastics in perpetuity.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT