Court Order Blocking Deportation Flights Sparks Constitutional Clash, Trump Allies Argue

America First Legal (AFL) and Texas GOP Rep. Brandon Gill are throwing their weight behind former President Donald Trump’s invocation of a centuries-old wartime law, arguing that a court order blocking his deportation plans "unconstitutionally impedes" his presidential authority.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg recently issued a 14-day pause on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Flights already airborne were ordered to return to U.S. soil immediately. Talk about hitting the brakes mid-air!

The AEA, enacted in 1798, grants wartime powers to the president to expel aliens deemed threats to national security. AFL Senior Counsel James Rogers strongly defended Trump’s actions, stating, "For over 226 years, courts have universally held that they do not have the power to interfere with the President’s authority as Commander in Chief under this Act."

Gill, in an amicus filing, expressed his belief that Tren de Aragua constitutes a "clear and present danger" to the United States, supporting Trump’s efforts to "neutralize this threat quickly and efficiently." He described the move as essential for ensuring the safety of his constituents.

AFL argued that the AEA grants the president authority to respond to invasions or predatory incursions, a power they claimed courts cannot review. Essentially, they’re saying Judge Boasberg’s decision is like a referee trying to rewrite the rules mid-game.

On Thursday, Boasberg criticized the administration for missing a court-imposed deadline to provide information on deportation flights, calling their late submission "woefully insufficient." He noted that the government had provided only a brief declaration, claiming Cabinet secretaries were considering invoking state secrets privileges. Not exactly a stellar performance.

In response to the emergency order blocking deportation flights, Gill filed impeachment articles against Boasberg, accusing him of judicial overreach. "This is another example of a rogue judge overstepping his authority," Gill stated. His resolution argued that Boasberg’s actions jeopardized national safety and undermined the executive branch’s ability to function effectively.

Gill’s fiery defense didn’t stop there. He called Trump’s presidency a "new era of accountability, justice, and security" and vowed that no activist judge would derail the administration’s mandate. Strong words—but this constitutional tug-of-war isn’t ending anytime soon.

While the case raises serious questions about the balance of power in government, it’s also a reminder that even laws older than America’s favorite coffee shop chains can spark modern-day drama.