U.S. District Judge James Boasberg Orders Trump Administration to Halt Deportation of Illegal Aliens and Narcotrafficking Gang Members

March 16, 2025 | Sundance |

It will not come as a surprise to CTH readers to hear the name Judge James Boasberg associated with efforts to protect the institutional interests of a corrupt DC deep state. Boasberg has a long, very long, and well documented history of protecting the DC apparatus {CTH Archives on Boasberg HERE}.

On Saturday, without giving the Trump administration any time to respond, Judge Boasberg issued an immediate temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking DHS, Customs and Border Patrol and ICE from deporting illegal aliens and narcotrafficking gang members belonging to Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Boasberg ordered the flights of criminal gang members to turn around and immediately bring the criminals back to the USA to enjoy a life of criminal conduct and terrorism in the USA. National security is secondary to the rights of criminal aliens to sell drugs, continue child/sexploitation, murder American citizens and rape their targets.

As I wrote in 2021, Judge James Boasberg has long been severely compromised; there simply is no other way to look at his interception of cases to protect the system,and the depth of his corruption is clearly visible in this set of rulings.

WASHINGTON DC – A federal judge has ordered an immediate hold on efforts by President Donald Trump to quickly deport Venezuelan nationals under rarely used wartime powers intended to resist a foreign invasion — and demanded the return of planes already headed to Central America.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to immediately halt efforts to remove those Venezuelan migrantsuntil he has more time to consider whether Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was illegal.

[…] “Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States however that is accomplished,” Boasberg announced. “Make sure it’s complied with immediately.”

Two aircraft believed to be carrying Venezuelan deportees took off from an airport in Harlingen, Texas, during a break in a video hearing Boasberg conducted Saturday for the lawsuit filed by immigrant-rights advocates. According to flight tracking databases, one plane was bound for San Salvador, El Salvador, and the other for Comayagua, Honduras, and they were in the air nearing their destinations as Boasberg issued his order. (more)

Judge James Boasberg, an ally of SSCI Chairman Mark Warner, has intercepted several cases that brought sunlight upon the corrupt DC system. In each case Boasberg ruled in favor of maintaining the corruption, including his willfully blind support of the FBI searching NSA databases to conduct illegal surveillance of Americans.

This is the same Judge Boasberg who sat as presiding judge on the FISA court. The same Judge Boasberg who gave FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith a slap on the wrist for manufacturing evidence used in the Carter Page FISA application that defrauded the court. The same Judge Boasberg who appointed former DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord as amicus curiae advisor to the court, after she knowingly and fraudulently submitted the FISA application to the court.

This is the same Judge Boasberg gave J6 FBI agent provocateur Ray Epps a sentence of probation.This is the same judge who, on his vacation, went to sit in the DC courtroom to observe defendant President Trump who was forced to appear in DC court. This is the same Boasberg who established a horrible precedent in forcing Vice-President Mike Pence to testify before a DC grand jury about his conversations with President Trump (breaking executive privilege).

Boasberg sits at the epicenter of a thoroughly corrupt and compromised DC court system.

The ‘ah-ha’ moment to understandjust how bad James Boasberg was/is, came during his decision to appoint the wife of Chief Justice John Robert’s senior staff Sheldon Snook, Mrs. Mary McCord as amicus to the FISA Court. {GO DEEP}

It will be interesting to watch how this case, appeal and challenge ends up.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/03/16/u-s-district-judge-james-boasberg-orders-trump-administration-to-halt-deportation-of-illegal-aliens-and-narcotrafficking-gang-members/

(I wonder if part of Trump’s plan was to have the DS aligned Judges expose themselves by the immediate and bizarro interference with the power of the Presidency, Commander in Chief, and Chief Magistrate of the U.S. Almost every judge in DC are controlled by the DS)

>>22768043 Reminder: President Trump Signs EO That He Will IGNORE All Lower Court Rulings Until SCOTUS Rules on the Constitutionality of Activist JudgesPN

How The Media Learned To Start Worrying And Fear The ‘Constitutional Crisis’

Eddie Scarry @eScarry More Articles

February 11, 20251/2

Democrat-appointed and activist judges are doing what they were always going to do if Donald Trump won the election, which is tie up and stall as much of his agenda as possible by court order. That’s all fine and good by the news media because they also hate Trump. But what they didn’t anticipate was the zeal with which Trump 2.0’s legal team would fight not just Democrats but also their presumed authority on the Constitution, a governing document still relatively young and far from fully tested.

After several judges in recent days ordered the Trump administration to stop exercising the president’s authority over the executive branch, one of them then accused the administration of defying an order to continue pushing billions of dollars to God knows where. The news media are using it all as an opportunity to microwave their “threat to democracy” hysteria.

“Trump’s Actions Have Created a Constitutional Crisis, Scholars Say,” a New York Times headlineblared on Monday. CNN legal analystJoan Biskupic warned of “a possible constitutional breakdown of American government.” NBC News also reported with alarm that “the nation may be edging closer to a constitutional crisis.”

To be sure, it’s always some kind of “crisis” when the Washington status quo is threatened.The possibility of cutting one dollar from the federal budget orremoving one middling bureaucrat from a bloated agency is always “unprecedented” and sure to result in “literally millions of deaths.” The pattern has played out this way for decades.

But now there’s someone in office who’s serious about changing it and who isn’t waving a white flag at the first bit of pushback from the judiciary.Under the radical theory that the executive branch of the federal government is in fact controlled by the executive (that’s the duly elected president), the Trump administration is appealing these court orders issued by unelected judges. And to the extent that the administration is defying them,there’s a non-obscure legal argument that they’re not even constitutional.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller made that point in a social media post on Sunday.“Hey Pete,”he wrote in a response to former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg,“care to show us the line in the Constitution where it says a lone unelected district judge can assume decision-making control over the entire executive branch affecting 300M citizens? Any mention of nationwide district court [temporary restraining orders]? Or permanent all-powerful bureaucracy?”

Vice President J.D. Vance similarly wrote on X, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

The short version of what’s been happening is Trump has issued a slew of executive orders directing federal agencies to do various things, some more controversial than others, like deny formal citizenship documents to the children of illegal aliens on U.S. soil. Democrat and activist judges have reacted by issuing their own orders compelling the administration to stop some of these policies, including — get this — a freeze on spending some money. Yes, a judge has demanded that the government spend money it literally doesn’t have. That’s where we are in this “constitutional crisis,” and we should think long and hard about who got us here.

Whether district judges even have the authority to issue a nationwide injunction orders is also up for debate. Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 indicated the Supreme Court “must address their legality.” That’s what the Trump administration is hoping for.

None of this is a “crisis.” It’s the usual reaction from permanent Washington feeling its money and power under siege.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/02/11/how-the-media-learned-to-start-worrying-and-fear-the-constitutional-crisis/

Read the next article on Justice Thomas on nationwide injunctions

>>22769299

(This article and author are Trump’s keys to stop the injunctions!)

Clarence Thomas, Alone, Asserts National Injunctions Are 'Historically Dubious'

ALM Media June 26, 20181/2

In the U.S. Supreme Court's travel ban decision Tuesday, the justices declined the U.S. Justice Department’s request to rule on the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions.

But one justice—Clarence Thomas—took up the cudgel, questioning the legality of those injunctions.“I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions,” Thomas wrote.

“These injunctionsdid not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to beinconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.

If their popularity continues, this court must address their legality.”

A federal district court in Trump v. Hawaii entered a global injunction against President Donald Trump’s travel proclamation. U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had asked the justices to decide whether the injunction was overbroad.Justice Department officials have been highly critical-of these types of injunctions.

Thomas and his colleagues soon may get an opportunity to address the legality of these global injunctions. In a case involving the city of Chicago, the Justice Department recently asked the Supreme Court to block a nationwide injunction issued against the restrictions the government crafted on certain federal funds to sanctuary cities.

The Justice Department is challenging the scope of the injunction in an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Francisco turned to the Supreme Courtwhen theSeventh Circuit refused to issue a stay pending the appealby a deadline imposed by the department.

The appellate court said it was waiting for the decision in Trump v. Hawaii to help "facilitate our disposition of the pending motions.”

But the high court majority in the travel ban case said it did not have to take up the issue of nationwide injunctions because it had disposed of the case on other grounds.

That, however, did not stop Thomas, writing alone. No other justice joined his concurrence. In his 10-page concurrence, Thomas said that=if district courts have any authority to issue universal injunctions, the authority must come from a statute or the Constitution=. He found no statute expressly authorizing those injunctions.

“So the only possible bases for these injunctions are a generic statute that authorizes equitable relief or the courts’ inherent constitutional authority,” he wrote.

Thomas devoted most of his solo concurrence to tracing the history and traditions surrounding those two “possible bases” and concluded thatthese injunctions “appear to conflict with several traditional rules of equity, as well as theoriginal understanding of the judicial role.”

As a general rule, Thomas wrote, “American courts of equity did not provide relief beyond the parties to the case. If their injunctions advantaged nonparties, that benefit was merely incidental.”

And, he added,“For most of our history, courts understood judicial power as ‘fundamentall[y] the power to render judgments in individual cases.’ The judiciary’s limited role was also reflected in this court’s decisions about who could sue to vindicate certain rights. And a plaintiff could not sue to vindicate the private rights of someone else.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clarence-thomas-alone-asserts-national-070756382.html

>>22769378

2/2

June 26, 2018It’s time for the SC to take up this opinion

In his opinion, Thomas revealed, with credit to research by Samuel Bray of UCLA Law School, what,he said, appears to be the first universal injunction. Thomas cited Bray's 2017 piece "Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction," published at Harvard Law Review.

That case was Wirtz v. Baldor Electric, and=the ruling came in 1963 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. "The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed a lawsuit challenging the secretary of labor’s determination of the prevailing minimum wage for a particular industry,”

Thomas wrote. “The D.C. Circuit also addressed the question of remedy, explaining that if a plaintiff had standing to sue then ‘the district court should enjoin … the secretary’s determination with respect to the entire industry.’”

Thomas argued in his concurrence that“no persuasive defense has yet been offered for the practice. They at best ‘boil down to a policy judgment’ about how powers ought to be allocated among our three branches of government.

In sum, universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious.If federal courts continue to issue them, this court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”

In a footnote to her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the district court in the travel ban case did not abuse its authority by granting nationwide relief. "Given the nature of the establishment clause violation and the unique circumstances of this case, the imposition of a nationwide injunction was 'necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs,'" Sotomayor said.

And about that term “nationwide injunction.” Thomas, in a footnote, acknowledged it is the more common term. But, he wrote, “I use the term ‘universal injunctions’ in this opinion because it is more precise. These injunctions are distinctivebecause they prohibit the government from enforcing a policywith respect to anyone, including nonparties—not becausethey have wide geographic breadth.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clarence-thomas-alone-asserts-national-070756382.html

Based on all the articles, documents, country engagement, Boasberg just tipped the scales to the Supreme Court and every illegal judgement by DC have called for greater investigation to set the Court to be overhauled. Enough with illegal orders to prevent the President from doing his job.

Its been going on for years, the SC needs to rectify this along with his collusion with Coney Barrett that did the same.

Justice Roberts has done this block and tackle on Trump for years.

Trump at the DOJ said the judges are afraid of negative news on them, that’s why the good ones go along with the DS.He also its got to be illegal for media to put pressure on judges to prevent them from doing the right thing. He repeated 3-4 times “this has got to be illegal” to endanger judges through the press. (I think that was a GO ORDER)

He also wrote an EO at the end of his first term Oct 2020, to give judges more protections.He’s been planning this fight for years

DeMarcus Lawrence vs Micah Parsons, Steph 4k threes = GOAT? Border Czar Tom Homan interview

On this Friday’s Stephen A. Smith Show, Stephen A begins the show by talking about some MAJOR drama between former Cowboys star DeMarcus Lawrence and current Cowboys star Micah Parsons. They got into it on social media and we’re getting into it here.

Then, Stephen A sits down for an interview with Donald Trump’s “Border Czar” Tom Homan, where they discuss ICE, deportations, past mistakes and future plans.

The show finishes with Stephen A giving some major love to Steph Curry for passing 4,000 career three-pointers made. Does he deserve to be in the GOAT convo? Let’s find out…

1:02:26

https://youtu.be/JE8mU–jjT0

>>22769607

Holman interview starts at 19:20 minutes

>>22769607

This was great, Stephen was extremely focused asked questions on the disinfo that the media put out, was polite and asked pertinent questions to Tom. Smith was really respectful and got straight answers from Tom. He also asked Tom to come back anytime. Tom starts at 19:45.

It was a very professional and direct interview. I’m glad he did this to inform the liberals that listen to him.