Federal Judge James Boasberg has become a central figure in the Trump administration’s legal battles over immigration enforcement, drawing sharp criticism from conservative commentator Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson argues that Boasberg’s recent rulings blocking deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 represent a dangerous consolidation of judicial power. He claims Boasberg’s actions are part of a broader “lawfare” strategy by Democrats to obstruct Trump’s agenda through activist judges.
Boasberg, an Obama-appointed judge, halted Trump’s use of wartime powers to deport over 200 individuals accused of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang. He ruled that the administration failed to provide detainees due process to contest their deportations, despite claims they posed public safety risks. The Trump administration defied his order, allowing deportation flights to proceed to El Salvador, where detainees were held in a U.S.-funded detention facility described as “harsh”.
Hanson calls Boasberg the “most powerful man in America” for effectively dictating national security policy through injunctions. He argues that unelected judges like Boasberg—none of whom “stand for election”—are usurping presidential authority under Article II of the Constitution. Hanson blames “cherry-picked” liberal judges for creating a “constitutional crisis” by delaying Trump’s policies through litigation.
The Justice Department accused Boasberg of overstepping his role, arguing that courts lack authority to second-guess the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act during perceived threats. Trump officials claimed the flights were already over international waters when Boasberg’s order was issued, rendering it moot. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt framed the dispute as a choice between public safety and “turning a plane full of rapists, murderers, and gangsters back to the United States”.
Republicans, including Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), launched impeachment efforts against Boasberg, calling his rulings “judicial activism.” Trump has repeatedly attacked Boasberg on Truth Social, accusing him of undermining national security. Meanwhile, liberal groups have praised the judge for curbing what they see as executive overreach.
Hanson links Boasberg to a pattern of Democratic-aligned judges—like Arthur Engoron and Juan Merchan—using procedural delays to sabotage Trump’s agenda. He claims these judges often have conflicts of interest, citing Boasberg’s daughter’s ties to an NGO funded by U.S. Aid to support immigrants. The goal, Hanson argues, is to drain Trump’s political capital by prolonging legal battles.
The D.C. Circuit Court upheld Boasberg’s injunction, but the administration has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court. Legal experts warn the dispute could redefine the balance of power between the executive and judiciary, particularly regarding immigration enforcement during non-wartime.
Boasberg cited potential violations of the Convention Against Torture, noting detainees faced “likely torture” in Salvadoran custody. The administration countered that releasing alleged gang members would endanger U.S. communities, though court filings revealed some deportees had no criminal records.
This clash highlights simmering tensions over immigration policy, judicial authority, and presidential war powers. With the Supreme Court likely to intervene, Boasberg’s rulings could set precedents affecting future administrations’ ability to expedite deportations during security crises. Hanson warns that without swift appellate action, “a single judge with two law clerks” will continue dictating border policy.
