Category: Judges

Trump’s Power Being Blocked by Judges and Weak Republicans? INTV w/ Steve Bannon

Is President Trump being stopped from doing the job he was elected to do? In this hard-hitting interview, Dan Ball and Steve Bannon reveal how activist judges, deep state operatives, and even some weak Republicans in Congress are standing in the way of Trump’s America First agenda. From mass deportations and border security to cutting wasteful spending and imposing tariffs, Trump is exercising his full Article II powers—but the legal and political resistance is fierce. Bannon warns: “To delay is to deny.” This is more than gridlock—it’s a constitutional crisis in real time.

Judges vs. America: How the Deep State Is Overruling Your Vote

The question is simple: Who runs this country—the voters or the judges?

 by 

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

Another day, another judicial blockade. Three more executive orders—each designed to advance the will of the American people—were unceremoniously put on ice by unelected black-robed obstructionists yesterday. That brings the total to 15 since President Trump took office in January 2025. That’s 15 direct assaults on the policies Americans voted for when they rejected the corruption and incompetence of the radical left.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t about “the law,” “checks and balances,” or “democracy” (a term the left constantly redefines). This is about deep-state operatives and activist judges blocking reform, hamstringing the administration’s efforts to clean up the mess left behind by Biden’s regime. The same establishment class that spent four years ignoring open borders, skyrocketing inflation, and a weaponized FBI now insists that every procedural technicality be followed before President Trump can act.

Consider what was just blocked. Among the three executive orders frozen yesterday was one expediting the deportation of violent criminal aliens, another targeting the corruption that allows bureaucrats to profit from their positions, and a third cracking down on federal grants abused by activist organizations masquerading as nonprofits.

Let me repeat that: judges intervened to stop the removal of dangerous criminals, protect corrupt bureaucrats, and ensure taxpayer money keeps flowing to left-wing political groups.

Someone, somewhere, please explain to me what law requires America to fund its own destruction. I’ll wait.

Of course, there is no such law. What we’re seeing is a coordinated legal resistance—engineered by well-funded leftist legal outfits, cheered on by corporate media, and rubber-stamped by judges who treat the Constitution as a Choose Your Own Adventure novel. The game is “Lawfare,” an endless stream of lawsuits designed to bog down the administration, tie up policies in court, and hope Trump runs out of time.

The pattern is unmistakable. The first round of blocks targeted Trump’s border security orders—because apparently, enforcing immigration laws is radical. Then came economic reforms meant to rein in the unelected bureaucracy—blocked. Now, it’s anti-corruption measures. What’s next? Will a judge rule that Trump breathing unapproved air is unconstitutional?

What makes this even more infuriating is the hypocrisy. Biden issued 117 executive orders in his first year alone, many of which reshaped policy overnight—no pushback. When he unilaterally extended the eviction moratorium, despite the Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional, the CDC did it anyway—no lawsuits, no injunctions. When he ordered OSHA to impose a vaccine mandate on private businesses, blatantly exceeding executive authority, the courts took months to respond—by then, the damage was done.

But the second Trump lifts his pen? Emergency lawsuits! Nationwide injunctions! Indignant CNN panels! The entire system is wired to protect the left’s interests while kneecapping anyone who challenges them.

So, who wins when judges override the duly elected president? The usual suspects. Open-borders cartels, government grifters, climate racketeers, and Washington bureaucrats who treat elections as suggestions. These are the people desperate to stop Trump’s America First agenda.

Trump already faces a hostile media, a corrupt DOJ, and a rabid opposition. Now, unelected judges have decided that the voters’ will is subject to their personal whims. The left couldn’t stop Trump at the ballot box, so now they’re trying to stop him in the courts.

Here’s the bottom line: if this continues, the presidency will cease to function. We will enter an era where only Democrat presidents get to govern, while Republican presidents are treated as placeholders under legal supervision. Elections will become meaningless. Activist courts will veto the will of the people, ensuring permanent rule by lawsuit.

That is the endgame. If they can paralyze Trump, they can paralyze any future Republican. If they can stall every executive action with endless legal challenges, no conservative reform will ever see the light of day. The left isn’t trying to “uphold the rule of law.” They are weaponizing the legal system to nullify elections they don’t like.

So, what do we do? First, Republicans in Congress must fight back. They control the House and have leverage in the Senate—use it. Stop funding corrupt agencies waging war on this administration. Demand accountability from judges who repeatedly overstep their authority. Treat this legal warfare as the existential threat it is.

Second, we need to fix the courts. The next Supreme Court vacancy must go to a warrior, not a compromiser. Lower courts must be purged of ideological activists who see themselves as policymakers. The left spent decades infiltrating the judiciary, and now we are reaping the consequences. If we don’t take judicial appointments seriously, we might as well surrender now.

Finally, the American people need to wake up. This is not just a legal battle. It is a fight over whether the people we elect actually get to govern. If unelected judges systematically dismantle the America First agenda, our votes will become meaningless.

The courts have become the last line of defense for the corrupt status quo. If we don’t fight back now, they will bury Trump’s reforms in legal quicksand and ensure no outsider ever challenges their grip on power again.

The question is simple: Who runs this country—the voters, or the judges? If we don’t settle that now, we may not get another chance.

Disobedience to Judges is Obedience to the Constitution

Trump isn’t defying checks and balances, he’s restoring them.

 by 

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FP+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

Judge James Boasberg issued an oral order demanding that planes carrying Venezuelan gang members, who were not even a party to the lawsuit before him and over which he did not have jurisdiction, be turned around in international airspace. Boasberg is now infuriated that his mere utterance, not even set down in writing, was not immediately obeyed.

Democrats and their media have taken to crying that any disobedience of Boasberg, who was appointed by Barack Obama to apparently rule not only the entire country, but the planet and all its airspace, is a “threat to democracy” and a violation of checks and balances.

It’s not. If anything, it’s an urgently needed restoration of those checks and balances that have been trampled on by judges who have seized unlimited power from elected officials like Trump.

Boasberg’s coup began when a D.C. judge decided to hear a lawsuit from the ACLU based on the detention of four inmates in Texas and one in New York. Despite it being the entirely wrong venue, Boasberg took the case. The 5 inmates who were on average 1,500 miles away from Boasberg, denied that they were members of the Tren de Aragua gang targeted by Trump. Despite that, they claimed they were at risk of deportation because Trump had invoked the Alien Enemy Act and demanded that Boasberg block a 200-year-old plus law that predates D.C.

The lack of minor matters like venue and standing didn’t stop Boasberg from blocking the implementation of a law that predates the White House, the Capitol and the entire principle of ‘judicial review’ that only came 5 years later in Marbury v. Madison before issuing an oral order turning around planes in midair. King George III would have been less presumptuous.

There’s a term for this that ends in a ‘y’ and it’s not ‘democracy’.

President Trump is not defying ‘checks and balances’ when he pushes back against a D.C. judge declaring that his word is law around the country and the world, he’s implementing them. A judiciary unbound by law, by the limitations of venue and standing, where judges pick and choose precedents and then go with their feelings is unchecked and unbalanced tyranny.

And it’s the farthest thing from what the Founders and the Framers had in mind for America.

Boasberg may be one of the worst examples of a judicial insurrection in which Democrat judges collude with allied political organizations to seize power and impose their will on everything. In recent weeks, Democrat federal judges have seized the power to manage every contractual detail of federal appropriations, the perpetuation of federal agencies only brought into being by presidential fiat, and mandated the presence of mentally ill cross-dressers in the military.

Boasberg’s attack on the Alien Enemy Act not only uses the principle of judicial review to block a law that predates the very concept of judicial review, but is a direct assault on the Constitution.

Judicial review does not exist in the Constitution. The Constitution created the Supreme Court and allowed for the creation of “such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, rolled back a previous judicial expansion of power as a violation of the Constitution.

“By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote. “In cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.”

Who exactly then is violating these checks and balances? President Trump or Judge Boasberg?

Does the president have a right to declare a Venezuelan gang an enemy and deport its members, who are not legally citizens of this country, in keeping with a law four times older than the now discredited Roe v. Wade, three times older than the origins of the pro-crime Miranda warning, and older even than judicial review? Or does a D.C. judge have the right to declare, on behalf of parties who were not at issue and not even in his jurisdiction, that he may not?

Can a federal judge demand that planes outside the U.S. turn around at the sound of his voice?

Constitutionally, Congress makes laws, presidents implement them, and judges hear claims by individuals whose rights were violated by them. Nothing entitled Judge Boasberg to declare potential deportees a ‘class’ based on a lawsuit by foreign non-deportees who were not even in his jurisdiction, and then give orders for planes to turn around and bring back gang members who were not even a legitimate party to the lawsuit by a leftist advocacy group. The ACLU’s argument that the Tren de Aragua gang does not qualify as a foreign enemy and Boasberg’s willingness to go along with that argument is entirely a matter of opinion and one left to presidential discretion. Neither Judge Boasberg nor the ACLU has presidential powers.

Federal judges do not get to decide which groups the president can declare are invading the United States. Such matters are the very definition of constitutional presidential discretion. An unelected judge who tries to seize the war-making powers of the presidency is engaged in a coup, and Boasberg is just the latest such judicial coupster since the aftermath of 9/11.

The White House’s rejection of judicial authority upholds checks and balances. It’s an impeachable offense and a violation of the constitutional role of the judiciary.

Disobedience to the rulings of judges who issue such rulings is obedience to the Constitution.

Trump Deports ‘Hundreds of Violent Criminals’ Despite Judge’s Order to Halt Flights

 Trump Deports 'Hundreds of Violent Criminals' Despite Judge's Order to Halt Flights

Sunday, 16 March 2025 11:56 AM EDT

The Trump administration has transferred hundreds of immigrants to El Salvador despite a federal judge's order temporarily barring deportations under an 18th century wartime declaration targeting Venezuelan gang members, officials said Sunday. Flights were in the air at the time of the ruling.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order Saturday evening blocking the deportations, but lawyers told him there were already two planes with migrants in the air — one headed for El Salvador, the other for Honduras. 

Boasberg verbally ordered the planes be turned around, but they apparently were not, and he did not include that directive in his written order.

“Oopsie … Too late,” Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally who agreed to house about 300 migrants for a year at a cost of $6 million in his country’s prisons, wrote on the social media site X above an article about Boasberg’s ruling. The post was recirculated by the White House's communications director, Steven Cheung.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who negotiated an earlier deal with Bukele to house migrants, posted on the site: “We sent over 250 alien enemy members of Tren de Aragua which El Salvador has agreed to hold in their very nice jails at a fair price that will also save our taxpayer dollars.”

"Hundreds of violent criminals have been sent out of our country," Rubio said in a statement.

The migrants were deported after Trump’s declaration of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which has been used only three times in U.S. history.

The law, invoked during World Wars I and II and the War of 1812, requires a president to declare the United States is at war, giving him extraordinary powers to detain or remove foreigners who otherwise would have protections under immigration or criminal laws. It was last used to justify the detention of Japanese-American civilians during World War II.

The ACLU, which filed the lawsuit that led to Boasberg's temporary restraining order on deportations, said it was asking the government whether the removals to El Salvador were in defiance of the court.

"This morning, we asked the government to assure the Court that its order was not violated and are waiting to hear back, as well as trying to do our own investigation,” ACLU’s lead lawyer, Lee Gelernt, said in a statement Sunday.

Venezuela’s government in a statement Sunday rejected the use of Trump’s declaration of the law, characterizing it as evocative of “the darkest episodes in human history, from slavery to the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps.”

Tren de Aragua originated in an infamously lawless prison in the central state of Aragua and accompanied an exodus of millions of Venezuelans, the overwhelming majority of whom were seeking better living conditions after their nation’s economy came undone last decade. Trump seized on the gang during his campaign to paint misleading pictures of communities that he contended were “taken over” by what were a handful of lawbreakers.

The Trump administration has not identified the migrants deported, or provided any evidence they were in fact members of Tren de Aragua or that they committed any crimes in the U.S. It did also send two top members of the Salvadoran MS-13 gang back to El Salvador who had been arrested in the United States.

Video released by El Salvador’s government Sunday showed men exiting airplanes onto an airport tarmac lined by officers in riot gear. The men, who had their hands and ankles shackled, struggled to walk as officers pushed their heads down to have them bend down at the waist.

The video also showed the men being transported to prison in a large convoy of buses guarded by police and military vehicles and at least one helicopter. The men were shown kneeling on the ground as their heads were shaved before they changed into the prison’s all-white uniform – knee-length shorts, T-shirt, socks and rubber clogs – and were placed in cells.

The migrants were taken to the notorious CECOT facility, the centerpiece of Bukele's push to pacify his once violence-wracked country through tough police measures and limits on rights.

The Trump administration said the president signed the proclamation contending Tren de Aragua was invading the United States Friday night but didn't announce it until Saturday afternoon. Immigration lawyers said that, late Friday, they noticed Venezuelans who otherwise wouldn't be deported under immigration law being moved to Texas for deportation flights. They began filing lawsuits to halt the transfers.

“Basically any Venezuelan citizen in the US may be removed on pretext of belonging to Tren de Aragua, with no chance at defense,” Adam Isacson of the Washington Office for Latin America, a human rights group, warned on X.

The litigation that led to the hold on deportations was filed on behalf of five Venezuelans held in Texas who lawyers said were concerned they'd be falsely accused of being members of the gang. Once the act is invoked, they warned, Trump could simply declare anyone a Tren de Aragua member and remove them from the country.

Boasberg barred those Venezuelans' deportations Saturday morning when the suit was filed, but only broadened it to all people in federal custody who could be targeted by the act after his afternoon hearing. He noted that the law has never before been used outside of a congressionally-declared war and that plaintiffs may successfully argue Trump exceeded his legal authority in invoking it.

The bar on deportations stands for up to 14 days, and the migrants will remain in federal custody during that time. Boasberg has scheduled a hearing Friday to hear additional arguments in the case.

He said he had to act because the migrants whose deportations may actually violate the Constitution deserved a chance to have their pleas heard in court.

“Once they’re out of the country," Boasberg said, "there’s little I can do."