For decades, activist judges have operated under one assumption: the executive branch will always comply. Issue an order, and the administration will grumble, maybe appeal, but ultimately fall in line.
That assumption just died.
The Department of Justice filed paperwork last week telling U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg — an Obama appointee with a history of running interference against the Trump administration — that they’re not playing his game anymore.
The message was clear: your order is unworkable, your demands are impossible, and if you try to enforce this, we’re going straight to the Supreme Court.
Welcome to the constitutional showdown we’ve been building toward since Trump took office.
The Background
Let’s set the stage, because this case is a perfect illustration of how broken our immigration system has become.
President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act last March and designated Tren de Aragua — the brutal Venezuelan gang that’s been terrorizing American cities — as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
The administration then did something radical: they actually enforced the law. They deported hundreds of suspected TdA members to El Salvador, where they were placed in Nayib Bukele’s now-famous Terrorism Confinement Center.
In July, those deportees were repatriated to Venezuela, where dictator Nicolas Maduro — who has since been deposed — welcomed them home.
Problem solved, right? Dangerous foreign gangsters removed from American soil, returned to their home country, no longer a threat to U.S. communities.
Not according to Judge Boasberg.
The Activist Judge
James Boasberg isn’t just any district court judge. He’s an Obama appointee who has made frustrating the Trump administration his personal mission.
This is the judge who initially tried to stop the deportations entirely. This is the judge who previously helped the Biden FBI obtain surveillance orders on Republican lawmakers. This is the judge who certified the Venezuelan deportees as a class and ordered the administration to offer them “legal relief abroad.”
Think about that for a second. A federal judge is demanding that the U.S. government provide legal proceedings to foreign nationals who are no longer in the country, no longer in U.S. custody, and are currently residing in Venezuela.
These aren’t American citizens being denied due process. These are suspected members of a foreign terrorist organization who were deported according to law and are now thousands of miles away.
And Boasberg wants them to have hearings.
The Impossible Order
The DOJ’s filing laid out exactly why Boasberg’s order is pure fantasy.
First: there’s no legal basis for holding remote habeas hearings without custody. The deportees aren’t in U.S. custody. They’re not even in a country the U.S. has cooperative relations with. You can’t just Zoom a legal proceeding into a foreign nation and pretend it has any legitimacy.
Second: the U.S. cannot enforce perjury laws in Venezuela. It can’t verify witness identities. It can’t protect classified information over “potentially unsecure lines in foreign settings.” Any proceeding would be a circus with no legal validity.
Third: bringing the deportees back to the U.S. for proceedings would require taking members of a designated terrorist organization back into American custody. It would require diplomatic negotiations with whatever regime currently controls Venezuela. It would inject chaos into an already delicate foreign policy situation.
In other words: Boasberg’s order isn’t just impractical. It’s impossible. And the DOJ said so in terms that leave no room for misinterpretation.
“Pound Sand”
The filing’s conclusion was remarkable for its bluntness.
“If, over Defendants’ vehement legal and practical objections, the Court issues an injunction, Defendants intend to immediately appeal.”
That’s not lawyer-speak for “we respectfully disagree.” That’s lawyer-speak for “we’re not doing this, and if you try to make us, we’ll see you at the Supreme Court.”
The DOJ isn’t asking for accommodation. They’re not looking for compromise. They’re telling Boasberg that his order is unworkable and they won’t comply.
This is the executive branch finally drawing a line against judicial overreach. And it’s long overdue.
The Constitutional Stakes
Here’s what’s actually at play.
For years, district court judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking executive branch policies they personally disagree with. A single judge in Hawaii could stop a presidential order affecting the entire country. A single judge in California could freeze immigration enforcement nationwide. A single judge in D.C. could demand impossible remedies for people who aren’t even in the United States.
The judiciary has been operating as a super-legislature, second-guessing every executive decision and issuing orders with no regard for whether they’re actually enforceable.
The Trump administration is saying: enough.
If Boasberg insists on his order, this case goes to the Supreme Court. And the questions that will be litigated go far beyond Venezuelan gangsters.
Can a district court order the executive branch to provide legal proceedings to foreign nationals in foreign countries? Can a single judge override the president’s national security determinations? Can the judiciary dictate foreign policy and diplomatic relations?
The answers should be obvious: no, no, and no. But activist judges have been pretending otherwise for so long that someone had to finally force the issue.
The ACLU’s Clients
Let’s not forget who we’re actually talking about here.
The ACLU is representing suspected members of Tren de Aragua. This is a gang credibly accused of murder, robbery, rape, human trafficking, and terrorizing immigrant communities across the United States.
These aren’t sympathetic victims of overzealous enforcement. These are alleged violent criminals who were deported because they posed a danger to American citizens.
And the ACLU’s position is that they deserve legal hearings conducted remotely in a foreign country with no way to verify identities, enforce rules, or protect sensitive information.
This is what “civil liberties” has become. Not protecting Americans from government overreach — but protecting foreign gangsters from the consequences of their own crimes.
The Monday Showdown
The DOJ’s filing sets up a confrontation with Boasberg on Monday. The judge will either back down — unlikely, given his track record — or issue an injunction that the administration has already promised to ignore pending appeal.
If Boasberg pushes, this goes to the D.C. Circuit and then almost certainly to the Supreme Court. And given the current composition of SCOTUS, the administration has good reason to like its chances.
The Court has already shown skepticism toward district judges issuing sweeping nationwide orders. It’s shown deference to the executive on immigration and national security matters. And it’s unlikely to endorse the proposition that a federal judge can order the U.S. government to conduct legal proceedings in a foreign country for non-citizens who’ve already been deported.
Boasberg may be about to learn that there are limits to judicial activism — limits that the Supreme Court is prepared to enforce.
What This Means
For years, the consensus in Washington was that the executive branch had to comply with any court order, no matter how absurd. Challenge it, appeal it, but ultimately obey it.
The Trump administration is changing that calculation. They’re saying: some orders are so far outside judicial authority that compliance isn’t required. Some demands are so impossible that the appropriate response is to refuse and let the higher courts sort it out.
This is risky. It sets up a confrontation between branches of government that could get ugly. Critics will scream about “lawlessness” and “authoritarian overreach.”
But someone had to draw the line. Someone had to tell activist judges that there are limits. Someone had to stand up and say: you can issue whatever orders you want, but we’re not going to pretend that bringing Venezuelan terrorists back to the U.S. for hearings is a reasonable demand.
The DOJ did that last week. Monday, we’ll see what happens next.
The Bottom Line
Judge Boasberg wants the Trump administration to provide legal proceedings to deported Venezuelan gang members currently residing in a foreign country.
The DOJ said no.
Not “we’ll try to work something out.” Not “let’s negotiate.” No.
This is the executive branch telling the judiciary that its reach has limits. That foreign policy isn’t subject to district court micromanagement. That deported terrorists don’t get indefinite legal proceedings conducted via international video call.
Boasberg can issue whatever order he wants on Monday. The administration has already made clear they won’t comply. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide who’s right.
But for the first time in a long time, the executive branch is fighting back. And that fight was long overdue.