Trump’s Legal Victories Force Arrogant Judges to Reassess Their Positions

In a remarkable challenge to activist judges, the Supreme Court and the 4th Circuit delivered a significant legal victory for President Trump on Monday, affirming his power to safeguard America against foreign threats and reining in judicial overreach.

These three judgements — addressing the Alien Enemies Act, an MS-13 deportation case, and government transparency issues — should be seen as a strong rejection of judicial intrusions that have interfered with Trump’s policy agenda.

Initially, the Supreme Court put a halt to DC District Court Judge James Boasberg’s attempts to impede Trump’s swift deportation of Tren de Aragua gang members and other foreign adversaries.

The president possesses near-unrestricted authority to expel foreign entities he perceives as a menace, thanks to the Alien Enemies Act.

On Monday, the court clearly stated that challenges to these deportations can only arise through individual habeas corpus petitions, dismissing class-action grievances.

This ruling permits Trump to continue deporting hazardous illegal immigrants without interference from errant judicial orders that could disrupt operations.

In another distinct ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts intervened to block a lower court from mandating the immediate return of a suspected MS-13 member from El Salvador, where he is being detained in a notorious large-scale prison.

Although the order was brief, the implication was unmistakable: Courts should not interfere when the executive branch takes actions to address public safety threats, even in cases of alleged “administrative errors” leading to incorrect deportations.

Roberts’ temporary injunction implied he supported Trump’s view that foreign policy and national security are indisputable executive responsibilities.

A court does not possess the authority to question these executive actions or force discussions with other nations for the retrieval of individuals deemed deportable long ago.

Completing the trifecta, the 4th Circuit ruled that Trump’s DOGE oversight team can access government information to detect fraud and waste.

The court found that the plaintiffs, which included five public-employee unions attempting to obstruct information release from multiple federal agencies, failed to demonstrate any concrete harm — and hinted that Trump is likely to prevail in the broader context.

This ruling promptly reinstated DOGE’s investigation.

It represented a win for transparency and a significant setback for judges trying to protect bureaucrats from Trump’s commitment to reducing government waste.

These triumphs followed an extraordinary legal challenge to Trump’s second term.

Activist judges, with Boasberg at the forefront, have been issuing nationwide injunctions frequently, not only disputing Trump’s authority but attempting to usurp his executive role.

Despite leftist accusations of Trump acting as a “fascist dictator,” it is the judiciary that has been distorting the Constitution and rule of law to hinder his agenda.

Article II grants the president nearly unilateral authority over national security and foreign relations.

Can you imagine if every drone strike required judicial approval — or worse, if courts directed military actions?

It’s absurd, right?

Yet that’s precisely what these district court judges have attempted to do.

It is Trump’s responsibility to remove national security threats; the judiciary has no role in immigration enforcement.

Boasberg epitomizes this absurdity.

He is currently pursuing contempt proceedings against Justice Department attorneys for not swiftly clarifying his vague and unlawful orders regarding a complex deportation operation.

He expected planes to be turned around mid-flight — as if he were directing a cinematic action sequence.

Meanwhile, the judiciary can procrastinate for months on cases that hamper Trump’s agenda.

With only four years to enact policies, this disparity is not only unjust — it threatens democracy.

Monday’s decisions are not politically motivated; they are principled.

The president, any president, governs national security and runs the executive branch.

Continuing to be contentious is the Mahmoud Khalil situation.

This Columbia grad student argues his deportation violates the First Amendment, but don’t be misled: It’s not a free speech issue but a matter of supporting Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

Khalil didn’t merely rant; he allegedly organized support for Hamas, intimidated Jewish students, and lied on his immigration applications.

The First Amendment does not protect such actions, nor should it.

He’s seeking sympathy while his pregnant wife waits, but he’s the one prolonging this losing case.

While the facts of Khalil’s situation are still unfolding, it appears he will be deported.

There is strong precedent from the Supreme Court: In December 2024, it unanimously upheld the secretary of state’s broad discretionary powers to revoke previously approved visas.

These legal victories underscore one undeniable fact: Trump was correct, and the activist judges were mistaken.

On Tuesday, he achieved another Supreme Court win when it overturned a district judge’s order mandating the reinstatement of 16,000 employees Trump had hoped to terminate.

Perhaps the judiciary is finally recognizing its boundaries.

If a few district court judges take these decisions seriously, the era of forum shopping, nationwide injunctions, and encroachments on Article II authority may come to an end.

Trump possesses the mandate — and the power — to defend America against gangsters, terrorists, and fraudsters.

The judiciary should cease its power grab and allow him to fulfill his responsibilities.

The rule of law has returned, and it’s wearing a red hat.

Andrew Cherkasky and Katie Cherkasky are military veterans, former federal prosecutors, and current criminal defense attorneys. They are the authors of the book “Woke Warriors.”