An Obama judge blocked the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 on Saturday. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg was, however, not fast enough with his verbal order to stop the departure of two planes full of alleged Tren de Aragua and MS-13 terrorists.

Critics in and outside the liberal media were quick to accuse the Trump administration of flouting the judge's order to halt or turn around the planes full of deportees, with some suggesting this supposed defiance was the beginning of a "true constitutional crisis."

CNN's Kasie Hunt, among those who apparently embraced this narrative, debated Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, on Monday about presidential and judicial authority, specifically on whether Boasberg's order was "patently unlawful." The engagement did not go well for the liberal talking head.

Background

President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 on Saturday, 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."

Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union quickly filed a lawsuit on behalf of several illegal aliens in an effort to prevent the president from utilizing a law that the generation that drafted the Constitution passed.

"The Trump administration’s intent to use a wartime authority for immigration enforcement is as unprecedented as it is lawless," stated Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project.

Boasberg obliged the leftist groups, issuing an order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from executing deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. Two planes loaded with apparent Tren de Aragua and MS-13 terrorists were, however, already airborne. Boasberg impotently ordered that the planes be redirected to the United States. They both successfully reached their destinations.

The White House press secretary later indicated that the "terrorist TdA aliens had already been removed from U.S. territory," and the Obama judge's order was unlawful anyway, as "federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the President's conduct of foreign affairs, his authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, and his core Article II powers to remove foreign alien terrorists from U.S. soil and repel a declared invasion."

Miller agreed, stating, "The actions of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense were not in conflict with the judge's order. But at the same time, it is also true that 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."

'Wrong. Look up the statute.'

At the outset of the interview on Monday, Hunt used Miller's previous suggestion that Boasberg's order was "patently unlawful" as a springboard for the following questions: "Does that mean that the administration is ignoring this order? And might you ignore future court orders that meet the criteria you laid out?"

Miller did not take the bait. Instead, he provided the CNN talking head with a lesson about separation of powers and the limits that even activist federal judges face.

— (@)

"The president of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country, men like John Adams, was written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States," said Miller.

'Does a district court judge have the right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas?'

"That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain any way. You can read the law yourself," continued Miller. "There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review."

Hunt countered with the suggestion that "this is how our system works — it starts with these judges," Miller explained the legal term "justiciable," which references whether a case is capable of being decided by a court.

Miller suggested that Trump's exercise of Article II powers to defend the homeland against an invasion or to combat a foreign terrorist threat inside the country as commander in chief is not a matter with which some lesser court can interfere.

"You talk about how the system works," said Miller. "Does a district court judge have the right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas? Yes or no?"

The flustered talking head desperately tried to avoid answering the question, responding with staccato cadence, "Well, Stephen — my question, I — if you can answer my question first. Is Venezuela — is Venezuela invading our country in a way that would apply this way?"

Miller was more than happy to answer Hunt's question, which spoke to the criteria for an Alien Enemies Act invocation.

After indicating that Tren de Aragua qualifies as an alien enemy force under the 18th-century law, Miller returned to the issue of separation of powers and presidential authority, reiterating that Trump, not some district court judge, identifies and takes action against an alien enemy force under the law.

Evidently immune to humiliation, Hunt kept pressing the issue, suggesting that the Alien Enemies Act requires a declaration of war against a nation or a state, prompting another correction from her guest: "No. Wrong. Look up the statute."

"The statute delineates three criteria for triggering the Alien Enemies Act," continued Miller. "One is an act of war, which, by the way, an invasion is an act of war. But put that aside. One is an invasion, which this is. One is a predatory incursion, which this is. So it actually meets all three statutory criteria. But with respect to this particular statute ... the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute."

When finally Hunt appeared to be looking for the thematic exit, Miller provided the CNN talking head with a summary of why he regards Boasberg's order as "patently unlawful," noting, "A district court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil than he can direct the movement of Air Force One, than he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier, than he can direct Marco Rubio to engage in diplomacy or a country."

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