D.C. judges became notorious during Trump’s first administration for overreaches of power more fitting for a banana republic, but Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, has hit a new high or low.
The ACLU filed J.G.G. v. Trump, the initials of the gang members, in D.C. on behalf of Venezuelan gang members in Texas (and one in New York) in which they appealed against the possible implementation of the Alien Enemies Act (which I discussed previously) to expedite the removal of TnD gang members back to their country.
Beyond all the other problems with the filing, there are two basic ones, the act hasn’t actually been implemented against anyone, including these men, and those men are not being held in D.C.
So any judge, no matter his politics, should have kicked the case in one paragraph, for lack of standing and the wrong venue.
This is a demand that the government be restrained from something it hasn’t done, to people it hasn’t done it to (the plaintiffs claim that they’re not even TnD members) on the belief that it might do it, and the people in question mostly aren’t within a thousand miles of D.C.
(Anyone who remembers the speed with which courts rejected challenges to pandemic lockdowns and 2020 election abuses knows how this works.)
Judge James Boasberg, who heads the D.C. District Court, decided to claim jurisdiction over Texas and New York, and then the entire United States, by forbidding the Trump administration from removing any alien enemies from the United States, and even ordered planes in the air to return, thereby also imposing his jurisdiction on the whole planet. Why not just declare himself planetary emperor at this rate?
Remember when you hear talk about standing and venue, an Obama D.C. judge just declared that he can take any case he likes and intervene whether or not there’s any standing or it’s the right venue. If this is allowed to stand, it eliminates entirely any checks and balances, as well as the separation of powers.
