re: Judge Boasberg, ordered Trump DOJ provide the court with more info in writing by Noon

quote:

---

But woe be upon the lawyer who knowingly presents false evidence in support of a TRO.

---

quote:

---

had argued that the deportations would likely pose imminent and "irreparable" harm to the migrants under the time proposed.

---

quote:

---

Please show where the Executive is acting illegally....and show your work.

---

quote:

---

When courts are discussing the limits of governmental power, the underlying case/merits often include bad people.

---

quote:

---

This wasn't a EO but a law passed by congress to give a President this power. It does not qualify for Judicial Actions.

---

quote:

---

If you were a federal district judge would you have power to rule on the alien enemies act or as the scotus ruled that the act is not a judicial review able issue?

---

quote:

---

As a federal district judge, I would not have the power to rule on the Alien Enemies Act in the sense of reviewing the president’s determinations under it. The Supreme Court has ruled that the act, specifically the president’s actions pursuant to it, is not a judicially reviewable issue. This conclusion stems from precedent, notably the 1948 case Ludecke v. Watkins, where the Court held that the president’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act to apprehend, restrain, or remove enemy aliens during a declared war is a matter of executive discretion and not subject to judicial review.
Understanding the Alien Enemies Act
The Alien Enemies Act, enacted in 1798, grants the president broad powers during a declared war to deal with aliens who are citizens or subjects of a hostile nation. This could include actions like detention or deportation. The law is distinct from other wartime measures, such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II under Executive Order 9066, which applied to U.S. citizens and is not directly tied to this statute.
Supreme Court Precedent
In Ludecke v. Watkins, the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the deportation of a German national after World War II. The petitioner argued that the war had ended, rendering the act inapplicable, but the Court deferred to the president’s determination that hostilities persisted. The ruling emphasized that such decisions are political judgments within the executive’s wartime authority, not suitable for courts to second-guess. This established that the president’s specific actions under the act are insulated from judicial oversight.
Implications for a Federal District Judge
As a federal district judge, I am bound by Supreme Court precedent. The ruling in Ludecke v. Watkins means I lack the authority to review the merits of the president’s decisions under the Alien Enemies Act—such as whether an individual qualifies as an enemy alien or whether the action taken was appropriate. Even in cases involving procedural questions, like a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court has upheld this deference, as seen in Ludecke, where a habeas challenge was denied.
Could the Act Itself Be Challenged?
Theoretically, courts have the power to review the constitutionality of statutes, including the Alien Enemies Act. For instance, one might argue it violates due process under the Fifth Amendment. However, the act’s long history—over two centuries—and its acceptance in wartime contexts, combined with the Supreme Court’s deference to the political branches in national security matters, make it highly unlikely that such a challenge would succeed. The Ludecke decision implicitly upholds the act’s validity, further limiting a lower court’s ability to rule against it.
Interpreting the Query
The query’s phrasing—“would you have power to rule on the alien enemies act or as the scotus ruled that the act is not a judicial review able issue?”—is slightly ambiguous, possibly due to a missing comma. It could mean:
“Do I have the power to rule on the act, or has SCOTUS ruled it non-reviewable?” Here, the answer is that SCOTUS has ruled it non-reviewable.
“Do I have the power despite the SCOTUS ruling?” As a lower court judge, I am bound by precedent, so the answer remains no.
In either case, the outcome is the same: I do not have the power to rule on the president’s actions under the act.
Conclusion
Given the Supreme Court’s ruling that the president’s determinations under the Alien Enemies Act are not subject to judicial review, I, as a federal district judge, would lack the authority to rule on such matters. This limitation reflects the judiciary’s traditional deference to the executive in wartime national security decisions. Therefore, the answer to the query is clear: I would not have the power to rule on the Alien Enemies Act in this context.

---

quote:

---

My recollection is that the bitching was nonstop.

---

quote:

---

The damned corrupt judge.

---