Supreme Court chief justice stands up to Trump as clash deepens over deportations

The institutional clash between the executive and legislative branches is intensifying in the United States. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has confronted President Donald Trump with a rare statement rebuking him for his attacks on Judge James Boasberg. Boasberg opposed Trump’s deportations of hundreds of Venezuelans without due process, carried out under an 18th-century law intended for wartime. The conflict has escalated and threatens to spiral into a constitutional crisis.

Trump said Boasberg was a “lunatic” and called for his impeachment. In his highly unusual statement, Roberts emphasized that the removal of federal judges “is not an appropriate response” to disagreements with their rulings.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” the statement read.

The Supreme Court’s chief justice, a conservative appointed by George W. Bush, is known for his prudence and generally avoids intervening in political disputes, so his statement underscores the gravity he attributes to the situation.

In one of his all-caps social media posts, Trump had attacked Boasberg, the federal judge overseeing the deportation case. “This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President,” he began his tirade, suggesting that his election victory made him above the law and judges.

“I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” the message concluded.

Roberts had previously defended the independence and professionalism of all federal judges in 2018, regardless of who appointed them, after Trump attacked a decision on his asylum policy made by what he referred to as “an Obama judge.”

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for,” he wrote in a statement.

In his closing remarks for 2024, Roberts once again defended judicial independence, which he said is being threatened by intimidation, misinformation, and the potential for public officials to defy court orders. He also condemned elected officials from all political parties who have “raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings.”

“Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others,” he wrote.

Open case

Justice Department lawyers had until noon today to respond to Judge Boasberg’s questions about the flights of Venezuelans deported to El Salvador on Saturday, despite the ban he had issued that same day. These transfers were arranged under a Trump decree invoking a 1798 wartime law that allows the president to expel foreigners from an enemy power attempting to invade.

At a hearing on Monday, convened by Boasberg to determine the exact times of the flights' takeoff and landing and to examine whether the U.S. administration had committed contempt of court, government lawyers avoided answering the judge’s questions. Almost simultaneously, these lawyers asked an appeals court to recuse the judge, who was appointed by Obama and whom they believe is exceeding his authority.

The controversy began on Saturday when Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act in his proclamation to declare, without much evidence on the ground, that the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua was attempting to wage war against the United States. His administration claims that those deported that day were members of this gang. However, human rights organizations filed a lawsuit to block their expulsion, and Judge Boasberg issued an order late Saturday afternoon prohibiting the deportations and demanding that the flights return if they had already taken off.

The planes did not return, but instead continued on to Honduras and then El Salvador, where the deportees were detained in the notorious prison built by Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele for gang members.

“We’ll do what we want”

The case threatens to escalate into a constitutional showdown between the judiciary, responsible for overseeing the legality of government actions, and a Trump administration convinced that presidential powers are nearly omnipotent and should not be subject to the oversight of rogue judges. At Monday’s hearing, a visibly frustrated Judge Boasberg summed up the Justice Department lawyers' position: “We don’t care, we’ll do what we want.”

This position reflects the prevailing sentiment across various levels of a government whose members have been chosen primarily for their loyalty to Trump. The president himself is the first to consider his authority superior to any other institution, despite the system of checks and balances — the executive, legislative, and judicial branches — that has governed the country since its independence.

In a post on Truth, his social network, he referred to Boasberg as a “troublemaker and agitator.” He also suggested that because he won the presidential election last year and prevailed in the seven swing states, he had greater authority than a judge to decide whether his actions were legal.

The White House’s vehemence in defending its position is similar to its approach in other cases where courts have placed limits on its actions, such as its attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship and the firing of hundreds of thousands of federal employees. It signals that the presidential office is prepared to grant itself nearly unlimited power during Trump’s second term.

At least until the midterm elections, when voter intentions could change, the Republican Party — which is completely dominated by the president — holds the majority in both houses of Congress. It does not appear that a group of dissenters will emerge from its ranks. The Democratic Party is currently divided and struggling to find a strategy to confront its rival. Republican voters continue to enthusiastically support the president’s measures and applaud the administration’s tough stance on immigration issues.

“We are unafraid to double down, and to take responsibility and ownership of the serious decisions that are being made,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday. “The president was elected with an overwhelming mandate to launch the largest mass deportation campaign in American history, and that’s exactly what he is doing.”

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, also supported this argument. Speaking to CNN, he claimed that Boasberg was acting “unlawfully” by trying to control Trump’s immigration measures. The 1798 Alien Enemies Act was “written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States,” the senior official stated, equating the Tren de Aragua with an aggression from an enemy power. “That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain in any way.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition