Today, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the wartime Alien Enemies Act, lifting U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s temporary restraining order, ruling that he lacked the jurisdiction to address the matter.

However, the court also ruled that those subject to removal must have a chance for judicial review.

In a 5-4 decision, the court stated, "Detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas (due process) relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

Notably, “conservative” justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent. (What a disappointment Barrett has been.)

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who is the judge responsible for blocking deportations, announced that he canceled a Tuesday court hearing in light of the high court's ruling because the Supreme Court determined that the "appropriate venue for such proceedings is the Southern District of Texas or wherever plaintiffs subject to potential removal are currently being held.”

Boasberg is the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not Texas. This speaks to the idea that these cases should be brought in the jurisdictions where the parties are seeking relief, and that relief, if granted, cannot lead to a blanket universal injunction handed out by a single district court judge.

There’s a lot to unpack regarding these legal battles, and the lawfare being waged on both sides is quite fluid and confusing, by design.

These high-level legal questions are discussed in my radio interview with The Conservative Voice, which you can watch using the video above. (Just as an FYI, the video feed doesn’t sync with the audio.)

Hope you enjoy it!

Conquest Theory is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In the aftermath of World War I and World War II, liberal elites found themselves engaged in a desperate struggle to avert the specter of World War III. Their fervent quest led them to delve deep into the root causes of these global conflagrations. Among the voices rising to prominence in this tumultuous era was that of the philosopher Karl Popper who believed that in order to achieve social progress, the West needed to deliberately discard most of its religious, cultural, and moral foundations.

Liberal Democracy has often been hailed as the pinnacle of human political achievement and the “final form of human government.” However, what is rarely discussed is how democracy itself paradoxically paves the way to outright tyranny. This is not a new revelation, yet its reality has been obfuscated due to incessant propaganda from both left and right liberals who seek to exploit democracy for political gain at home and use it as a basis for expanding the Global American Empire abroad.

Robert Conquest's "Three Laws of Politics" offers thought-provoking insights into the behavior of individuals, organizations, and institutions within political environments. Although initially created to address authoritarian regimes and ideological changes, their importance extends to broader conversations about human conduct, power dynamics, and the operation of societies.