Will the Supreme Court rein in rogue judges — or rubber-stamp them?



Nationwide injunctions — once unknown in American legal tradition — have exploded in popularity, driven by single federal district court judges eager to block policies enacted by the political branches. Supreme Court justices appointed by presidents of both parties have raised alarms about the trend.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett have criticized these injunctions in written opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan have raised similar concerns in public comments. In the 2018 Trump v. Hawaii decision, Thomas called them “legally and historically dubious.” Speaking at a Ninth Circuit judicial conference, Kagan reportedly remarked, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

The question before the court is fundamental: Do elections matter, or do lower-court judges run the country?

Solicitors general from both parties have also objected. Joe Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, warned last year that nationwide injunctions cause “substantial disruption” to executive functions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris earlier this year called them an “epidemic.”

The Supreme Court will now decide whether these bipartisan objections reflect genuine constitutional concerns — or partisan convenience. Take Mary McCord, for example. A former Obama White House official and adviser to the January 6 Committee, she co-signed the respondents’ brief defending the nationwide injunctions in this case. But would she have supported them when courts used them against her own administration?

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in Trump v. CASA, Inc., along with the related cases Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey. At issue is the Trump administration’s “modest request” to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state. These injunctions blocked enforcement of the president’s day one executive order on birthright citizenship, even before courts ruled on the legal merits.

(Full disclosure: I submitted a brief in the case on behalf of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, urging the court to restore the original meaning of the 14th Amendment — one that excludes both temporary visitors and illegal immigrants from automatic citizenship.)

The case against universal injunctions follows directly from the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 limits judicial power to “cases or controversies,” designed to resolve disputes between parties, not to dictate national policy. Nationwide injunctions go well beyond the plaintiffs and defendants involved.

Article III, Section 1 vests judicial authority in the Supreme Court and “such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” District courts possess geographically defined jurisdictions. A single federal judge in, say, Maryland or Washington state was never meant to issue rulings that bind the entire country.

Nationwide injunctions routinely disrupt government operations. Different district courts can issue conflicting injunctions, creating legal chaos and making compliance virtually impossible. That’s exactly what happened in 2022 after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction blocking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a common abortion drug. Just hours later, Judge Thomas Rice in the Eastern District of Washington issued a competing order — this one prohibiting the FDA from altering its approval of the same drug in half the country.

RELATED: Injunction dysfunction or tyrant disruption? Trump-era judicial paralysis explained

designer491 via iStock/Getty Images

These injunctions also fuel rampant forum-shopping. Predictably, left-leaning jurisdictions like Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington state produced most of the nationwide injunctions during the Trump presidency — just as Texas courts served that role under Obama and Biden. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan have both warned about this manipulation. Members of Congress, legal scholars, the American Bar Association, and even the Judicial Conference of the United States have proposed random judge assignments for cases that could result in nationwide injunctions.

Such reforms might reduce forum-shopping, but they do not fix the underlying constitutional defects.

If the court agrees with the Department of Justice and narrows the injunctions to the actual parties in the case, it must still define who counts as a party. Will that include only the named plaintiffs? Or will it extend to entire state populations listed as plaintiffs — or worse, activist groups claiming to represent all their members?

If the court accepts either of the latter definitions, it effectively reauthorizes nationwide injunctions under a different name. That outcome seems unlikely. The court will likely stop short of endorsing such a sweeping expansion of lower-court power and instead point to the existing class-action mechanism already embedded in federal rules.

Whatever the court decides, the consequences will ripple through the hundreds of lawsuits filed against the president’s executive actions. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of the last election — and whether unelected district judges can override the policies chosen by the American people. The question before the court is fundamental: Do elections matter, or do lower-court judges run the country?

Memo to Democrats: ‘Oversight’ isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card



Democrats and their media allies now argue that members of Congress hold a newly invented constitutional right to storm U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Their claim? Elected office grants them authority to resist arrest, trespass on federal property, and even assault law enforcement — all in the name of “oversight.”

This claim fails both legally and morally. The members involved should face prosecution for any crimes they committed, along with disciplinary action in the House of Representatives. For too long, the political class has treated immigration enforcement as a mere policy disagreement — as if wanting laws enforced and wanting them ignored were morally equivalent. In doing so, the left has normalized the historically abnormal: mass illegal immigration and the sabotage of our deportation systems. It’s time to treat these actions for what they are — criminal subversion of U.S. law.

No one gets to use 'oversight' as a pretext for criminal behavior.

Start with what happened last week in Newark, New Jersey. The instigators included New Jersey Democratic Reps. LaMonica McIver, Bonnie Watson Coleman, and Rob Menendez Jr., along with Newark Mayor Ras Baraka. Baraka was arrested for trespassing and defying multiple warnings to leave the premises. According to Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, body camera footage shows “members of Congress assaulting our ICE enforcement officers, including body-slamming a female ICE officer.” DHS plans to release the video soon.

The Democrats have mounted two defenses. First, they claim victimhood — insisting they broke no laws. That argument will not survive video evidence.

Second, they assert an absolute right to enter ICE facilities without warning under their oversight authority. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, defended the stunt by denouncing ICE as “Trump’s stormtroopers” and promising “more oversight — and more unannounced visits.”

Thompson and others cite an appropriations law that says, “Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility ... for the purpose of conducting oversight.”

That phrase — “conducting oversight” — is the entire ballgame.

The fact is, oversight powers do not belong to individual members of Congress. They belong to the full House, delegated through formal committees led by majority-party chairmen. Minority members cannot issue subpoenas or demand access on their own. Without authorization from Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee had no legal basis to enter — let alone rush — a secure ICE facility.

ICE’s past policy of accommodating visits reflects executive discretion, not any congressional right. No one gets to use “oversight” as a pretext for criminal behavior. Even with proper authorization, no member of Congress holds the right to use force to conduct an inspection. This is a political argument masquerading as a legal one.

U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba has indicated she will proceed with prosecution. Her decision should rest solely on the facts — not the convenient legal fiction of “oversight amnesty.” As Bennie Thompson himself once said when chairing the January 6 select committee, “No one is above the law.”

Congress should not let this incident pass without consequences. While expulsion may prove unlikely due to the two-thirds vote requirement, the House can and should remove these members from their committee assignments. Rep. McIver currently sits on the Homeland Security Committee, where Secretary Kristi Noem is scheduled to testify this week. Let her watch from the hallway.

John Roberts doesn’t deserve your deference



The first 100 days of Trump’s presidency marked a well-earned honeymoon. But the next 100 days will test whether the marriage can survive — especially with unruly offspring like judicial overreach and intra-MAGA infighting threatening the union.

Take Chief Justice John Roberts, for example. In a recent interview, he claimed the judiciary is “independent” from the other branches, yet also insisted it has the authority to “strike down” both laws and executive actions. So which is it? Are judges independent arbiters — or unaccountable gods?

Every movement walks a fine line between selling its soul and learning to take ‘yes’ for an answer.

Roberts may not understand what “independent” actually means. How can the judiciary call itself independent when it relies entirely on the other two branches for its power? Judges don’t appoint or confirm themselves. They don’t fund their own operations. They can’t enforce their own rulings or impose new policies. They act only through the political structures that created them.

‘Neither force nor will’

The judiciary is, by design, the most dependent of the three branches. The Constitution’s framers structured it that way to protect the rights they believed came from God, not government. Want proof? Run a full-text search of the Constitution for “strike down” or “struck down.” Those words don’t appear — because that power was never explicitly granted or even implied. Read Federalist 78 and 81. Hamilton makes it plain.

He also made clear that courts have no authority to tax, spend, or raise armies. Why did he highlight those powers? Because they are the most sweeping and dangerous. Governments that can conscript citizens and debase the currency can do real harm. But the political branches exercise those powers — and voters can hold them accountable. The judiciary, with its lifetime appointments, cannot be removed when it abuses its role. That’s why, as Hamilton wrote, courts were designed to possess “neither force nor will.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier shows exactly what’s at stake. He’s openly defying a federal judge’s order on immigration. So why hasn’t anyone arrested him for contempt? Who would enforce the order? The U.S. Marshals? Not without Trump’s OK. Local sheriffs? Only if Gov. Ron DeSantis agrees.

The chief justice is betting you won’t notice. He’s counting on your silence while the courts expand their own power unchecked. But a republic cannot survive if one branch decides its own jurisdiction. Power flows where it’s permitted to go. And the so-called moral majority — the people John Adams believed would hold the republic together — have surrendered too many battles to keep “We the People” alive in more than name. We’ve never truly been a nation of laws. We’ve always been a nation of political will.

Maligning MAHA?

That political will must now be exercised — boldly — against both the judiciary and the emerging fractures inside the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. While it’s true that MAGA 2.0 wouldn’t exist without MAHA, the movement faces internal risks just as dangerous as external enemies. If MAHA lets infighting fester, it will rot from the inside — just as Anthony Fauci’s unchecked power eroded trust during COVID.

I first heard of Casey Means through Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. Now, I’m being asked to believe — by MAHA stalwarts I deeply respect — that Trump’s nominee for surgeon general is some kind of psyop designed to block real accountability. Seriously? If Rogan and Carlson are now launch platforms for deep-state mind control, then it might be time to pack it in and let the judges run wild. Eat, drink, and brace for booster number 666.

When you’ve lived on the margins as long as the MAHA crowd has, it’s natural to view new arrivals — alleged “bandwagon jumpers” like Means and her brother Callie — with suspicion. But every successful team needs bandwagon fans. Have you ever noticed how stadiums only fill when a team wins? That’s no coincidence. MAHA has gained traction and credibility, and now people want in. That’s a good thing. But if MAHA wants to become the new status quo, it must learn to govern.

Every movement walks a fine line between selling its soul and learning to take “yes” for an answer.

At some point, you have to move past the constant sense of betrayal and start making real compromises. That’s how things get done. Whether in marriage, business, or politics — risk always comes with meaning. It’s just math.

Pulling the COVID shot off the market would take guts. So will getting a Republican Congress to accept its mandate from the people, rather than punting to unelected judges while cashing in on K Street.

The next 100 days must restore order. The path forward looks clear. What’s uncertain is whether we have the courage and conviction to walk it. Were we made to be ruled by John Roberts and Anthony Fauci? Or will we step up and govern like citizens? Yes, governing is hard. But letting medical and judicial “experts” run our lives is far worse.

Right?

Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said



When NBC’s Kristen Welker asked President Trump last Sunday whether illegal aliens have due process rights, he hedged.

“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials,” Trump replied on “Meet the Press.”

That’s not even close to good enough. Trump should have responded clearly and forcefully: While everyone enjoys due process before being criminally punished, deportation is not punishment. It’s an administrative action that flows from national sovereignty.

Illegal aliens do not possess the same due process rights as citizens. They can make their case to immigration officials — but those officials retain full discretion to deny their request and carry out removal. We’re not jailing these people; they are free to return home on their own. If they refuse, we remove them — just like any homeowner would remove a trespasser.

The analogy is simple. If a burglar breaks into your home, you can’t torture or imprison him without a trial. But you absolutely can — and should — force him to leave.

That’s why deportation proceedings don’t come with government-funded lawyers. The law is clear: “In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge ... the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel.”

The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.

Trump’s hesitation creates the impression that illegal aliens do enjoy full due process under immigration law — but implementing it would just be too hard. That argument doesn’t persuade. The American people don’t want laws ignored simply because enforcing them is difficult.

Welker pushed further: “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”

Trump replied: “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

But we should never confuse what the Supreme Court says with what the Constitution requires. The court has long recognized that immigration law operates under different standards. The power to exclude or remove aliens lies entirely with Congress and the executive branch, not the judiciary.

What the founders, Supreme Court, and Constitution say

The constitutional, statutory, and philosophical basis for removing aliens without full judicial due process is overwhelming. The historical record speaks for itself:

1. Gouverneur Morris, Constitutional Convention debates (1787):

“Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”

2. William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (2nd edition):

“In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.”

3. Chief Justice John Marshall, The Exchange v. McFaddon (1812):

“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”

4. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892):

“It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”

5. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):

“That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.”

6. Kansas v. Colorado (1907):

“Self-preservation is the highest right and duty of a Nation.”

The right to deport is an extension of the right to exclude

7. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):

“The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.”

8. Justice James Iredell, Charge to Grand Jury (1799):

“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.”

9. Emer de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” (1797):

“Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. ... Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.”

Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere

10. Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895):

“The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”

11. Knauff v. Shaughnessy(1950):

“The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes. … The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. ... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

12. Fiallo v. Bell (1977):

“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.”

13. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952):

“We think that, in the present state of the world, it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. ... Reform in this field must be entrusted to the branches of the Government in control of our international relations and treatymaking powers. We hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause.”

Due process does not guarantee entry or residency

14. Lem Moon Sing v. U.S. (1895):

“As to such persons [non-citizens wishing to remain in the U.S.], the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by [C]ongress, are due process of law.”

15. Galvan v. Press(1954):

“Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government ... that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded ... as any aspect of our government.”

16. Justice Robert Jackson (dissenting), Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953):

“Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”

Deportation is not punishment

17. Turner v. Williams (1904):

“No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens. ... But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial.”

18. Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.(1893):

“The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied. ... It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions.”

Trump never should have equivocated on immigration law — or deferred to his lawyers. The Constitution, the courts, America’s founders, and common sense all say the same thing: Noncitizens do not enjoy an absolute right to remain in the United States. Deportation does not violate due process because deportation is not punishment. It is the lawful exercise of sovereignty.

The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.

Reconciliation or capitulation: Trump’s final go-for-broke play



“Sovereignty” may have won the Kentucky Derby. But if it’s going to win in Washington, Republicans need to stop stalling and start delivering.

Many of us backed Donald Trump in 2024 with a clear, urgent checklist of national priorities. None matter more than mass deportations. Only one real legislative vehicle remains to force the issue: budget reconciliation.

If Republicans won’t use the reconciliation bill to cut inflation, they should at least use it to shut down the invasion.

Let’s be blunt. Republicans have no plan to cut spending. The only debate is how much debt they’ll add. That leaves mass deportations as the last major policy goal still backed by both the White House and much of the GOP.

Yet under current judicial norms, each of the 20 million deportations could require a court fight. At this pace, Trump would remove fewer than 1 million people by the end of his term — only to be followed by a radical Democrat ready to usher in 20 million more.

What’s the solution?

The House Judiciary Committee earmarked $81.4 billion for ICE and deportation-related activities in its reconciliation bill. But that money means nothing — worse, it only inflates the debt — if we don’t fix the lawfare loopholes and end the legal incentives that fuel this invasion.

This isn’t just about funding. It’s a matter of policy. The final reconciliation bill must include structural legal reforms. Otherwise, the invasion continues — with billions wasted in the process.

According to sources, congressional allies plan to attach an amendment to upcoming legislation that would put an end to immigration-related lawfare once and for all.

The proposal would bar anyone who isn’t a green card holder — including all illegal aliens and temporary visa holders — from gaining standing in Article III courts to challenge their deportation. In other words, rulings by immigration judges would be final. Unless the government seeks to imprison someone on criminal charges, no foreign national has a due-process right to remain in the country against the national will. The bill simply reaffirms long-standing principles that activist judges have chipped away at for years.

The amendment also tackles lawfare targeting red states trying to enforce immigration laws. Once Trump leaves office, a legal backstop must be in place to prevent a fresh wave of illegal immigration from overrunning states like Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Idaho.

Federal judges have repeatedly blocked these states from criminalizing illegal presence. This bill would strip federal courts of jurisdiction in such cases. Any legal challenge would go through state courts instead, making state supreme court rulings final and beyond the reach of federal review.

Unless Trump starts ignoring rogue judicial rulings, this legislation is his only realistic path to carrying out mass deportations.

He must go all in and make it clear to Congress that he won’t accept procedural excuses about the Byrd Rule or Senate parliamentarian objections. The Senate majority can overrule the parliamentarian — something they already plan to do to pass tax cuts.

This is Trump’s moment to force the issue. No more delays. No more legal sabotage. No more excuses.

The House Judiciary Committee’s draft of the major spending bill includes a provision aimed at curbing judicial abuse — but it doesn’t go far enough.

The measure would require judges to collect a bond from plaintiffs seeking injunctions against the federal government. If they fail to collect it, their rulings would be void under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

But the reform is too narrow to matter. The NGOs suing to block immigration enforcement have deep pockets. Judges can easily set token bond amounts that do nothing to deter meritless lawsuits.

Still, the provision proves a vital point: Republican leadership is willing to include policy-related language in a reconciliation bill when it suits them. That means nothing prevents them from going further and defunding litigation aimed at sabotaging deportations.

This is Trump’s last real chance to salvage his immigration agenda. Reconciliation offers his clearest shot at using party control to pursue an objective he can’t afford to lose.

If Republicans won’t use the reconciliation bill to cut inflation, they should at least use it to shut down the invasion.

Mass deportation or bust: Trump’s one shot to get it right



You can’t litigate your way out of an invasion.

Removal is not considered a criminal punishment but an administrative consequence of sovereignty. If it were treated as a form of punishment, it would require due process and could take months to remove even the worst offenders. We see that happening now, and we can no longer afford these delays.

President Donald Trump should challenge overreaching court rulings and use resources more effectively to maximize the number of removals.

End judicial tyranny

Imagine you are a liberal judge on the federal bench. You know the political system — including all three branches of government and both major parties — grants you sweeping authority to dictate policy through an injunction. Regardless of legal precedents, constitutional constraints, rules of standing, or national security concerns, you can issue an opinion that instantly becomes “the law of the land.” Why wouldn’t you exploit that power like a judicial version of Kim Jong Un?

By cutting through the legal obstacles, ICE could apprehend and remove individuals in a single step.

At some point, we must stop blaming judges for legislating with impunity and start holding the other branches accountable for not just relinquishing their own power but for enabling judges to usurp the law. As St. George Tucker wrote in his commentaries on the Constitution, “If we consider the nature of the judicial authority, and the manner in which it operates, we shall discover that it cannot, of itself, oppress any individual; for the executive authority must lend its aid in every instance where oppression can ensue from its decisions.”

If President Trump is unwilling to simply ignore these lawless rulings, he should at least insist that Congress include a provision in a must-pass bill to eliminate all judicial review for deportations. At a minimum, lower courts should be removed from the process entirely. Unless a plaintiff files a habeas petition claiming the individual is actually a citizen or has been misidentified, all removals should be final.

We already have several million immigrants with criminal convictions living in this country, at least eight million who entered during Joe Biden’s term, and many others who arrived earlier. If we continue to extend this level of due process — whether through administrative courts or Article III courts — we risk undermining our sovereignty. This explains why Trump is averaging only a few hundred thousand removals annually at the current pace.

How did President Dwight D. Eisenhower manage to remove more than one million illegal aliens in just a few months in 1954 — after the passage of the modern Immigration and Nationality Act — without facing endless lawsuits? Today, every deportation becomes a legal battle.

Eisenhower’s administration had fewer resources, just 800 Border Patrol agents, and primitive technology. Still, they got the job done because they believed in themselves and in the nation. They also understood that you don’t repel an invasion through litigation. Our immigration system was never designed to grant full due process to individuals here illegally, and that principle should be clarified in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

When court proceedings — even in administrative courts — are required, Immigration and Customs Enforcement currently must provide detention space for each person it apprehends rather than taking them directly to the point of removal. By cutting through the legal obstacles, ICE could apprehend and remove individuals in a single step.

But how?

Maritime removals

Trump is currently using military and commercial flights to remove illegal aliens. Most flights carry only 100 to 200 passengers and are difficult to secure against potential unrest. They also cost more, rely on airports in potentially hostile countries, and require additional personnel.

A better option might be to use Navy and Coast Guard vessels from ports in Florida and Texas, which sit along the Gulf Coast toward Latin America. The president could also call on the Department of Transportation’s National Defense Reserve Fleet. This force of about 100 ships receives nearly $1 billion in annual appropriations and can be activated within 20 to 120 days for emergency sealift operations during wartime or in response to disasters.

The NDRF includes mostly cargo ships and tankers. Its Ready Reserve Force — comprised of 41 vessels — provides extra shipping capacity or rapid deployment for U.S. military forces. These ships are stationed at 18 ports, including three in Texas and one in Florida.

This fleet features National Security Multi-Mission Vessels, each able to carry 1,000 people — far more than the roughly 100-person capacity of a C-17 plane or the 150 to 200 seats on most commercial aircraft. These ships can stay at sea for 14 days without resupply and include medical facilities, enough space for 60 cargo containers, a helicopter landing pad, and roll-on/roll-off vehicle capacity. They could be activated immediately and based at a designated port along the Gulf of America.

By using these vessels, President Donald Trump could transport far more unauthorized immigrants for removal at a lower cost than air travel.

Call up National Guard

One major obstacle to large-scale deportations is a lack of detention space. Shifting to maritime operations would shorten the time illegal aliens spend in custody by reducing reliance on deportation flights. Newly apprehended people would enter detention as those previously held depart.

Yet, Trump doesn’t need hundreds of billions of dollars to build new detention facilities. During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. forces suddenly found themselves guarding 65,000 Iraqi prisoners of war who surrendered en masse. The military constructed temporary detention sites practically overnight. Trump could replicate this approach by ordering the National Guard to set up outdoor facilities near Gulf Coast “deportation ports.” It’s an inexpensive, efficient way to get the job done.

Trump will have only one shot to get mass deportations done right. If he deports just a few hundred thousand people each year despite a mandate to address the crisis, critics will say mass deportations are unworkable and push for amnesty. Now is the time for Trump to use every tool and resource at hand to meet that mandate.

With Each Injunction, The Courts Become An Unelected Ruling Class

This obstruction is far from what the framers intended.

The Judicial Insurrection Is Worse Than You Think

The point of all the injunctions and restraining orders is to preserve the supreme rule of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

The legal move that could stop anti-Trump lawsuits in their tracks



The Trump administration has been inundated with lawsuits. While this is hardly surprising, the sheer volume — well over 100 as of this writing — and the speed at which unfavorable rulings have been issued against the president are remarkable.

The rapid pace of these cases has muddled key legal issues. Notably, many cases involving contracts, back pay, and civil service protections likely do not belong in federal district court at all. These courts have, in turn, successfully backlogged Trump’s agenda by issuing temporary restraining orders — a unilateral command to back down without any opportunity to appeal.

Most of the lawsuits against Trump don’t belong in the district courts at all — yet they are successfully halting his presidential operations.

The Department of Justice should explore creative legal strategies to steer these cases away from federal courts toward the appropriate venues: the Court of Federal Claims and the Merit Systems Protection Board. At the same time, the White House should take steps to ensure that these are fair venues for claims against the administration rather than partisan courts presided over by residual Biden appointees.

A jurisdiction problem

The trouble with these cases is that they probably don’t belong in district court at all. Congress — which has plenary power over the lower courts — has determined that contract disputes belong in the specialty Court of Federal Claims.

Similarly, cases involving adverse personnel actions under civil service laws are designated for the Merit Systems Protection Board. Yet many of these cases end up in the district courts.

The Department of Justice has urged the Supreme Court to force district courts to abide by their jurisdictional limits. However, the Trump administration has another weapon in its arsenal to force the issue sooner: invoking the ancient writ of prohibition.

Revive the writ of prohibition

The writ of prohibition, originating in English common law, was popularly used to resolve jurisdictional court disputes. If a court improperly exercised jurisdiction over an ecclesiastical matter, for instance, the King’s Bench could issue a writ of prohibition to divest it of authority.

In the United States, this writ was initially rare but gained broader applicability with the creation of modern circuit courts of appeal, allowing appellate courts to act in aid of their jurisdiction. According to one appellate court, to invoke the writ, there needs to be a clear instance of a court violating its jurisdiction without any other available way to challenge its actions — precisely the situation Trump faces.

In many of these lawsuits against the administration, the district court simply lacks jurisdiction. For example, if a plaintiff seeks to force USAID to pay out a contract, that case would fall under the jurisdiction of the CFC, not a federal district court. The same principle applies to personnel actions, which should be heard before the MSPB rather than in district courts.

If the district court grants a temporary restraining order in both cases, the government effectively has no way to appeal. Trump, therefore, has a right to seek a writ of prohibition to prevent district courts from exceeding their jurisdiction when given no adequate appellate remedy. That’s exactly why the writ exists.

Replace Biden appointees

This jurisdictional battle highlights another critical issue for Trump: his appointments. If the Department of Justice succeeds in redirecting contract cases to the CFC, they would currently land before a Biden appointee. Trump has the authority to change that immediately, and he should.

The situation at the MSPB is more complex. Trump previously dismissed its chairman, who subsequently sued him. However, a vacancy remains on the board. Trump should move quickly to fill it, ensuring the MSPB is well positioned to handle the influx of personnel claims.

“Government by temporary restraining order” will persist until a higher court intervenes. The writ of prohibition is an underused but powerful legal remedy that the Justice Department should consider pursuing.

Meanwhile, Trump must ensure that if cases are rerouted to the CFC and MSPB, those bodies are not controlled by Democrats when they don’t need to be. The president has the power to make the CFC and MSPB great again — and he should use it.

Federal Courts Protect Women’s Right To Safely Reverse Chemical Abortions

Pro-life pregnancy centers get big win ensuring the protection of their right to free speech against radical leftist attorneys general.