An Obama judge doubled down Monday on his ruling preventing President Donald Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected terrorists who have stolen into the homeland.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — who critics claim is not just overstepping his bounds but "usurping the power of the president" — stated in his 37-page opinion that suspected members of the Tren de Aragua terrorist organization have a right to individualized hearings before they may be deported.

Later Monday, another Obama judge — this time on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — heard the government's arguments for lifting Boasberg's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett echoed her fellow traveler, claiming that the suspected terrorists dwelling in the country illegally who had been targeted for deportation were not given the due process supposedly owed them and that "Nazis got better treatment."

Background

Weeks after the State Department designated Tren de Aragua a terrorist group, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, proclaiming that all Venezuelan citizens "14 years of age or older who are members of TDA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."

'The judge's order was patently unlawful.'

A pair of leftist activist groups immediately filed a lawsuit on behalf of several illegal aliens in an effort to prevent Trump from using the law, which was passed by the generation that drafted the Constitution.

Boasberg granted the leftist groups their temporary restraining order, thereby preventing the Trump administration from sending more suspected terrorists packing — besides, of course, the hundreds of illegal aliens the administration loaded into planes destined for El Salvador and Honduras hours earlier.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, stated, "The judge's order was patently unlawful. Beyond unlawful, it was an outrageous assault on the Constitution, an outrageous assault on the sovereignty of the nation and on democracy itself."

Miller later told CNN that Trump's authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States with the aid of the Alien Enemies Act "is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain in any way."

"There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review," added Miller.

Trump noted on Truth Social, "If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!"

Tren de Aragua's judicial safety net

Boasberg suggested that the language of the Alien Enemies Act — particularly the terms "nation," "government," "invasion," and "predatory incursion" — was open for his interpretation and insinuated that a court could potentially be "empowered to decide if the characteristics of Tren de Aragua qualify it as a 'nation' or 'government,' or if its conducts constitutes a 'perpetrated, attempted, or threatened' 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion.'"

'Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings.'

Despite his apparent interest in tailoring the definitions of key terms to suit leftist activists and illegal aliens, Boasberg indicated that such a provocative course of action was likely unnecessary as the plaintiffs "have established a likelihood of succeeding on a more discrete claim that justifies retaining the TROs."

The Obama judge claimed that even if Trump's invocation of the act is valid, suspected enemies in the country illegally are still to be afforded the chance to contest their deportation or voluntarily self-deport.

"Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all," wrote Boasberg. "The awesome power granted by the Act may be brought to bear only on those who are, in fact, 'alien enemies.' And the Supreme Court and this Circuit have long maintained that federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such."

The judge stressed that the illegal aliens targeted by the act "must be given the opportunity, if they so choose, to contest that they are 'Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States."

Different Obama judge, same story

The Trump administration has appealed Boasberg's hearing and argued its case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Monday. Based on their reception by an Obama-appointed judge on the panel, the Alien Enemies Act may not ultimately be a reliable arrow in the administration's quiver when it comes to dispatching with illegally imported terrorists.

Judge Patricia Millett complained that the hundreds of criminal noncitizens whom Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed were flown to El Salvador and Honduras on March 15 were not given notice or provided an opportunity to contest their ouster, reported ABC News.

"There's no regulations, and nothing was adopted by the agency officials that were administering this. They [sic] people weren't given notice," said Millett. "They weren't told where they were going. They were given those people on those planes on that Saturday and had no opportunity to file habeas or any type of action to challenge the removal under the AEA."

'We cannot allow rogue, activist judges to conduct our foreign policy.'

According to Millett, "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act," referencing previously identified enemy aliens' ability to challenge their removal from the country during World War II.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign reportedly suggested Millett was wrong about her Nazi comparison, noting that some of the suspected terrorists were able to file habeas petitions.

Whereas Boasberg repeatedly cast doubt on the validity of the law, Millett was at least willing to acknowledge the law was constitutional.

Millett's responses were tempered by another judge on the panel, Trump-appointee Justin Walker, who appeared wise to the plaintiffs' game. Walker reportedly questioned why the activist groups decided to bring their case in Washington, D.C., rather than in Texas, where the deportees were being detained.

Of limits and ousters

Republican Rep. Brandon Gill (Texas), among those frustrated with judicial overreach and Democrat-appointed judges' apparent efforts to thwart the will of the democratically elected president, has filed a resolution to impeach Boasberg — a largely symbolic gesture granted it will reportedly require 14 Senate Democrats to convict.

Gill, who deemed Boasberg's latest ruling a "judicial insurrection," told Fox Business, "I hope that the Supreme Court steps in and expedites this appeals process, but absent that, I think Congress needs to jump in here. We cannot allow rogue, activist judges to conduct our foreign policy or to usurp the president's authority."

A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports found that voters favor impeaching Boasberg by a 2-to-1 margin — something Trump has expressed support for — and that voters majoritively support Trump's deportation of Venezuelan terrorists.

Critics of judicial overreach might ultimately have better luck reining in activist judges with legislation.

On Monday, California Rep. Darrell Issa (R) introduced a bill titled the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would prohibit U.S. district courts from issuing any order providing for injunctive relief "except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court."

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan indicated that his committee will also hold hearings on efforts by Democrat-appointed judges to undermine the Trump administration.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!