Trump urges Supreme Court to rein in activist judges blocking border security moves

• Trump urges the Supreme Court to intervene against federal judges blocking his immigration policies, calling them “radical and partisan.”
• A judge halted deportations of Venezuelan gang members, sparking White House outrage over national security concerns.
• Trump faced 64 nationwide injunctions in his first term—far more than previous presidents—raising concerns over judicial overreach.
• Conservative lawmakers plan legislation to limit nationwide injunctions, calling them a “dramatic abuse of judicial authority.”
• The Supreme Court remains divided on the issue, with some justices criticizing injunctions as unchecked judicial power.

President Donald Trump is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene against what he calls “radical and highly partisan” federal judges who have repeatedly obstructed his administration’s efforts to secure the border and enforce immigration laws.

In a fiery Truth Social post on Thursday, Trump accused these judges of overstepping their constitutional role by issuing nationwide injunctions that effectively paralyze executive actions—including the deportation of dangerous criminals like members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. The escalating clash between the judiciary and the presidency, Trump warned, threatens national security and undermines the rule of law.

The immediate flashpoint is U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s order blocking the deportation of suspected Tren de Aragua members under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law designed to remove foreign threats. Trump’s administration insists the gang, which was designated a terrorist organization, poses a clear danger, but Boasberg’s injunction forced the return of deportation flights midair, sparking outrage from the White House.

Judicial activism vs. presidential authority

Trump’s frustration reflects a broader battle: federal judges have issued a record number of nationwide injunctions against his policies compared to past presidents. According to Harvard Law Review, Trump faced 64 such injunctions in his first term—far exceeding the six against George W. Bush and 12 against Barack Obama. This trend, critics argue, allows a single unelected judge to veto policies affecting 330 million Americans.

“These Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes,” Trump wrote. “They want all of the advantages with none of the risks.” His post singled out Boasberg as a “local, unknown Judge, a Grandstander, looking for publicity,” whose rulings he called “ridiculous and inept.”

Legal scholars and conservative lawmakers warn that the injunctions create a constitutional crisis by eroding the separation of powers. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced plans to introduce legislation curtailing district courts’ ability to issue nationwide blocks, calling the practice a “dramatic abuse of judicial authority.”

The White House has urged the Supreme Court to “rein in” lower courts, but Chief Justice John Roberts rebuffed Trump’s call to impeach Boasberg, stating that impeachment is not a tool for resolving judicial disagreements. However, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have criticized nationwide injunctions as judicial overreach. In a recent dissent, Alito blasted a lower court’s order forcing the administration to release $2 billion in aid, asking, “Does a single district-court judge … have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States?”

The Tren de Aragua case underscores the stakes. Trump’s March 15 proclamation cited the gang’s “irregular warfare and hostile actions” on U.S. soil. Yet Boasberg’s injunction has left the administration fighting to enforce its own national security directives.

The standoff raises fundamental questions: Should a handful of judges hold veto power over immigration enforcement? And can the U.S. afford delays when deporting violent criminals? Trump’s allies argue the answer is no. “If Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court do not fix this toxic situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!” Trump declared.

With the Supreme Court yet to weigh in definitively, the battle over nationwide injunctions remains unresolved. But as long as judges continue blocking executive actions ranging from border security to military policy, the tension between judicial activism and presidential authority will only intensify. For now, the White House vows to press forward, even as its opponents in the judiciary dig in.

Sources for this article include:

TheEpochTimes.com

FoxNews.com

NYPost.com