President Donald Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 10903 in March 2025, invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants allegedly linked to the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. The administration characterized the gang's presence as an "invasion" and "irregular warfare," asserting that the 18th-century law allowed the executive branch to bypass standard immigration due process. In response, legal advocacy groups filed a class-action lawsuit, J.G.G. v. Trump, on behalf of five Venezuelan men facing imminent removal. Chief Judge James Boasberg of the District Court for the District of Columbia was assigned to the case and issued a temporary restraining order certifying the migrants as a class. During the emergency hearing, Boasberg verbally ordered the government to return any planes already in the air to the United States.Despite this directive, the administration allowed two deportation flights to proceed to El Salvador, where over 260 men were taken into custody at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). The administration later argued that the order did not apply because the aircraft were over international waters at the time and that the written version of the order did not specifically mention planes in flight. Judge Boasberg subsequently found probable cause to hold the administration in criminal contempt of court, criticizing its "willful disobedience" and warning that such actions could trigger a constitutional crisis. A whistleblower report from a former Justice Department attorney further alleged that top officials had planned to ignore court orders even before they were issued.The legal battle escalated as the U.S. Supreme Court vacated Boasberg's original restraining order, ruling that challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought as individual petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the specific districts where petitioners are detained. Following this, several other federal judges in Texas, New York, and Colorado issued injunctions blocking the use of the act, with one judge describing the government's notice to deportees as a "bare bones form letter" that failed to provide evidence of gang affiliation. Eventually, a federal appeals court panelvacated Boasberg's criminal contempt ruling, concluding that his original order was not clear or specific enough regarding the transfer of detainees to foreign custody.In addition to the deportation case, Judge Boasberg faced significant criticism for signing non-disclosure orders related to subpoenas for the phone records of nearly 20% of Senate Republicans. Lawmakers alleged that Boasberg approved these "gag orders" without any factual basis, violating a federal statute that requires notice to members of Congress when their data is searched. While supporters claimed the judge followed standard operating procedures and was unaware of the targets' identities, critics characterized the move as an abuse of judicial power and a targeted effort against the President's political allies.Simultaneously, Judge Deborah L. Boardman of Maryland drew intense scrutiny for her sentencing of Nicholas Roske, who traveled to Maryland with the intent to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Although federal guidelines suggested a sentence of 30 years to life, Boardman imposed a sentence of only eight years, citing Roske’s transgender identity and mental health issues as mitigating factors. These various rulings led to Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on "rogue judges," with some lawmakers calling for the impeachment of both Boasberg and Boardman for allegedly betraying the public trust and subverting the constitutional order. Others defended the judges, maintaining that the proper remedy for judicial disagreement is the appellate process rather than political removal.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-world-between-us--6886561/support.