DOJ Seeks Appeals Court to Remove Obama Judge Blocking Trump Admin’s Deportation of Venezuelan Aliens

The Justice Department has taken a major stand against judicial overreach, formally requesting the removal of Judge James Boasberg from overseeing the Trump administration’s Alien Enemies Act case. This bold move comes after Boasberg—an Obama-appointed activist judge—issued an emergency order attempting to block the deportation of dangerous Venezuelan gang members, including members of the notorious Tren de Aragua criminal syndicate.

The controversy erupted when Boasberg tried to interfere with a lawful deportation order, recklessly demanding that the U.S. government bring back criminal aliens who were already in the process of being removed. According to Politico, Boasberg arrogantly ordered that “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.” In other words, Boasberg attempted to override the executive branch’s authority and force the return of violent criminals who were already en route to their countries of origin.

The Justice Department swiftly rejected Boasberg’s outrageous demands, pointing out that these criminal aliens were not even within U.S. jurisdiction when his order was issued. The DOJ correctly argued that Boasberg has zero authority over international flights, exposing the judge’s reckless disregard for the limits of his power.

Recognizing the serious national security implications, the DOJ wasted no time in seeking immediate intervention from a federal appeals court. They filed an urgent request to overturn Boasberg’s order before a critical hearing set for Monday, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal showdown.

Rather than exercising judicial restraint, Boasberg doubled down, pressuring the DOJ to answer sensitive national security questions that could compromise ongoing operations. In an act of judicial intimidation, he scheduled a public hearing and demanded that the administration disclose classified details about the deportation flights, including:

• The exact number of planes used in the deportations.
• The number of criminal deportees on board.
• The international destinations where these gang members were being sent.

The DOJ responded with grave concern, warning that Boasberg’s demands posed a serious risk to national security and could expose critical operational details to foreign entities. The administration made it clear that national security should never be compromised just to satisfy an activist judge’s political agenda.

In a strongly worded letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the DOJ slammed Boasberg’s actions as a blatant abuse of judicial power. They argued that the district court had grossly overstepped its authority, forcing the executive branch to reveal sensitive security information without due process.

The DOJ made it clear that Boasberg’s interference was not just inappropriate—it was dangerous. If the administration complied with his demands, it could lead to serious legal consequences and undermine future efforts to deport dangerous criminals who pose a threat to American citizens.

To prevent further damage, the DOJ formally requested that the case be reassigned to a different judge, citing Boasberg’s highly irregular and improper handling of the proceedings. They pointed out that Boasberg rushed to certify a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the deported gang members without proper discovery or government input, an unheard-of move that reeked of partisan interference.

The battle over Judge Boasberg’s actions has ignited a firestorm of controversy, particularly among conservative lawmakers, legal experts, and media outlets who see this as yet another example of left-wing judges weaponizing the courts against the Trump administration’s efforts to secure the country.

Fox News, Newsmax, and The Federalist have all pointed to Boasberg’s ruling as a textbook case of judicial activism, arguing that his actions reflect a broader pattern of liberal judges undermining the rule of law to obstruct Trump’s America First policies.

Critics argue that Boasberg’s intervention directly undermines U.S. national security, as his order effectively shields known criminals from deportation. They point out that many of these individuals belong to dangerous transnational criminal organizations, including MS-13 and Tren de Aragua, which have been responsible for violent crimes, drug trafficking, and human smuggling across the United States.

Many believe that Boasberg’s interference sends a clear message—that activist judges are willing to prioritize their political agenda over public safety. This case serves as a stark reminder of why the judiciary needs reform, as unelected liberal judges continue to override the decisions of a duly elected president.

As the federal appeals court reviews the DOJ’s request, the case is set to become a major legal showdown with far-reaching consequences. The question at hand is whether a single district judge can unilaterally obstruct the executive branch’s ability to deport criminal aliens—or if the courts will respect the constitutional separation of powers.

Legal experts warn that if Boasberg’s decision is allowed to stand, it could set a dangerous precedent, giving activist judges a blank check to interfere with national security decisions. On the other hand, if the appeals court rules in favor of the DOJ, it would send a clear message that the executive branch retains full authority over immigration enforcement—without rogue judges inserting themselves into the process.

Conservative voices are urging the judiciary to put an end to this judicial overreach once and for all. They argue that the safety and security of the American people should never be held hostage by activist judges pushing a political agenda.

This battle over judicial power is far from over, and the outcome will have lasting implications for Trump’s ongoing fight against illegal immigration and the balance of power between the branches of government.

The DOJ’s move to remove Judge Boasberg from the case is being hailed as a much-needed pushback against a weaponized judiciary. Many are hopeful that the appeals court will take action to rein in rogue judges who think they can override the president’s authority.

For now, all eyes are on the federal appeals court, as conservatives wait to see if the rule of law will prevail—or if activist judges will continue to put American lives at risk.