By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Department of Justice’s ongoing clash with left‑leaning federal judges, more often than not (it seems) with judges like Judge James Boasberg, highlights a growing constitutional crisis: inferior courts increasingly act as if they possess supervisory authority over the executive branch. The latest flashpoint came when an appeals court suspended Boasberg’s contempt order against the Trump administration for its March deportation of Venezuelan criminal aliens to El Salvador. The DOJ went further, requesting Boasberg’s removal on the grounds that he has launched a politically motivated campaign against the administration.
Boasberg accused the administration of “willful disobedience” for failing to comply with his earlier directive to return the deportation planes, declaring, “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders, especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.” He further claimed that the deportees were “spirited out of this country without a hearing,” asserting that senior officials knowingly violated judicial commands.
Democratic politicians seized on the dispute, arguing that the administration’s resistance to lower‑court orders proves that President Trump is a would‑be dictator ignoring the Constitution. But this raises a fundamental constitutional question: Where in the Constitution is the executive branch required to obey the orders of inferior federal courts?
Article II of the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, whose duty is to execute the laws of the United States. Immigration law is being executed. Nothing in the Constitution grants the judiciary authority to micromanage executive enforcement decisions, nor does it empower district judges to supervise or override presidential discretion in matters of foreign policy, deportation, or national security.
The Founders established that the judiciary may issue opinions, but not commands. This is among the reasons why the judiciary was never originally given an enforcement arm. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch.”
History provides clear examples of presidents rejecting judicial overreach:
• Thomas Jefferson refused Chief Justice John Marshall’s order to deliver William Marbury’s commission. Marshall himself acknowledged that the Court lacked the power to enforce its own directives.
• Andrew Jackson, confronted with a Supreme Court ruling he believed unconstitutional, famously responded, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
These episodes underscore a constitutional reality: the judiciary may apply the law to the cases they hear, but they may not compel the executive to act against its own constitutional duties.
The Constitution’s first three articles each begin with the word “vested” included in the opening salvo. The presence of the word “vested” was a deliberate structural choice establishing three separate branches. Each branch possesses powers that are exclusive and nontransferable. When a federal judge attempts to dictate how the President must execute immigration law, the judiciary crosses into executive territory, precisely what the Framers sought to prevent.
Boasberg’s order, therefore, raises a deeper issue: Is the judiciary attempting to exercise powers not vested in it by the Constitution?
The orders aren’t even based on constitutional grounds, anyway. Critics argue that deported criminal aliens were denied due process. But Article IV, Section 2 makes clear that the privileges and immunities associated with citizenship apply to citizens, not to individuals who have entered the country illegally. While Congress or the executive may choose to extend procedural protections to non‑citizens, the Constitution does not require it.
To claim otherwise is to rewrite the constitutional text.
If a federal judge repeatedly issues orders that exceed constitutional authority, interfere with the executive’s vested powers, or appear politically motivated, impeachment becomes not only permissible but necessary. The Constitution provides impeachment as the remedy for “bad behavior” by federal judges; behavior that includes issuing unconstitutional directives or attempting to usurp powers belonging to another branch.
Judge Boasberg’s actions, viewed through this constitutional lens, raise serious concerns about judicial overreach and the erosion of separation of powers. If inferior courts can dictate executive action in defiance of constitutional boundaries, then the balance of power collapses, and with it, the structure the Framers designed to preserve liberty.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
