Legal expert Jonathan Turley provided some positive news for the Trump administration this week during a Fox News segment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to support President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport over 200 members of the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Agua. During an appearance on America’s Newsroom with Bill Hemmer, Turley acknowledged that the legal debate surrounding the administration’s decision is “controversial,” but he expressed confidence that the courts are fully equipped to handle the matter.
“There are certainly strong arguments for the administration to make here,” Turley began. “I think that we have to be honest that there are good faith arguments on both sides. This is a controversial law being used in a new way and there are legitimate questions as to the meaning of some of these terms.” The legal dispute began after Trump invoked a centuries-old law in mid-March, which permits the rapid deportation of criminal non-citizens deemed national security threats. Tren de Agua, linked to a surge in criminal activity, became the first target.
However, after a federal judge blocked the deportations and an appeals court upheld that ruling, Trump’s legal team signaled they would escalate the fight to the Supreme Court. Turley stated that this is precisely where the battle should be fought. “How much of it is actually reviewable? That’s going to be resolved by the Supreme Court, not by lower court judges,” Turley said. “And people need to trust our system here. We have the greatest legal system on Earth. It will work through these problems, and I think it’s going to work through them.”
He added that the rising number of nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges- mostly against Trump executive actions- is eroding executive authority, a concern that former Attorney General Bill Barr echoed earlier in the week. “These district court judges are trying to usurp the responsibility of the president in the national security area,” Barr warned. “They’re trying to reduce all decisions to these trial-like hearings which essentially gives the judge the power to overrule and second-guess the executive.”
Lower courts have treated the Trump administration very differently from past presidents. President Biden faced 14 injunctions during his term, President Obama 12, and President Bush only 6, while the first Trump administration was hit with 64 injunctions. Remarkably, just 64 days into the current term, that number has already climbed to 15. “It’s like having a car where every passenger is grabbing the emergency brake. It’s pretty hard to drive that car,” Turley said. “And what you have here are judges that are imposing national injunctions, which the Supreme Court—including liberals like Justice Kagan—have objected to. She said, ‘This is madness.’”
He added: “I think the Trump administration is likely to win. I also think the Trump administration is likely to prevail in most of these cases. I think that federal judges have overextended themselves. I think they have intruded into areas of Article II or presidential authority.” Earlier this week, Fox legal analyst and attorney Gregg Jarrett said federal judges shouldn’t even be reviewing Trump’s use of the Act because the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1940s that the law was not reviewable by any federal court, including the highest court in the land.