Opinion: Judge Halts Trump’s Deportation of Venezuelan Gang Members; Florida Debates Eliminating Gun Regulations

Can Federal Judges Block the Actions of the Executive Branch of the Government?

The question is academic. It is the Constitutional responsibility of the Executive branch of the government to keep our borders secure. Article IV; Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

Over the last four years, the Biden administration blatantly and aggressively violated its responsibility by opening U.S. borders wide to anyone who could walk. Now that responsibility falls on Trump's shoulders. It is not just his desire, but his Constitutional responsibility and duty to undo all the treasonous acts of a preceding, offending administration. Deporting illegal aliens and dangerous criminals is not an act of war, but of restoring Constitutional stability, that is, securing the blessings of peace and domestic tranquility to our nation. 

According to a Fox News article By Alec Schemmel Fox News, Published March 17, 2025 2:08pm EDT “After Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg issued an order Saturday halting President Donald Trump's rapid deportation of Venezuelan gang members, Texas GOP Rep. Brandon Gill swiftly announced plans to file articles of impeachment in an effort to remove him.” Gang members… do we really want judges who are sympathetic to… gang members? 

Good for Representative Gill!  This judge is trying to block the Constitution. This is an obvious violation of his Oath of Office. It is also intentional and defiant treason (not to mention glaring insubordination) according to Article IV; Section 4 (quoted above). “Judge” Boasberg is literally aiding and abetting dangerous enemies, which is a Constitutional definition of treason. Article III; Section 3; Clause 1: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 

There is no immunity for treason for anyone in this country… especially a president and elected officials, and appointed judges. This judge should have been locked up as soon as he signed the orders to attempt to block Trump's Constitutional actions. And he probably should have been locked up for the same charge in many of his other decisions, as well, but I won’t go into that at this time. SCOTUS Justices are restricted, constitutionally, by times of good behavior. This means every one of the judges must be conducting themselves morally and ethically while sitting on the bench. It’s just my opinion that Justices Thomas and Alito are the only ones who have willingly and completely embraced this requirement. That is our rule of law, the Supreme Law of Our Land, the Constitution.

Representative Dan Daly, a Parkland Democrat, said, “I’ve read the Second Amendment. Please point to me the part that says you get an AR-15,” said Rep. Dan Daley, “Please point to the part that says you get to be 18 and 20 years old and have an AR-15. Show me the words. You can’t.” https://floridapolitics.com/archives/727200-bill-lowering-gun-buying-age-on-target-to-reach-house-floor-over-objections-of-parkland-families/#comment-401288 

Here is what you said didn’t exist, Mr. Daly.  Your mistake is blaringly obvious. You can’t read the 2nd amendment without stating the section of the Constitution which it refers to: Article I; Section 8; Clause 16: (Congress Shall have the Power) “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”  Amendment 2: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The creators of our Constitution were brilliant. The incredible advantages of strong state militias have far-reaching, ever-encompassing ripples. Among which are a self-disciplined population ready to defend our country at a moment's notice; Common knowledge of firearm use and safety; A peaceful, self-disciplined, moral society;and  Common knowledge of our Constitution.

Obviously, our state militias are comprised of the people themselves, not the army or the national guard, but We The People. State Militias, which consist of (preferably all) able-bodied persons within every state, Constitutionally, are to be trained by the state according to the regimen prepared and prescribed by Congress. It is the duty of Congress to supply all able-bodied men/women who compose the State Militias with the latest state-of-the-art, military grade firearms, equipment, and ammunition. This is wise and necessary to stand off an invading army. And it is the state’s responsibility to train our State Militias into an organized fighting force and provide them with officers. They keep their weapons at home and are required to be ready at a minute’s notice. The basic structure is right in the Constitution. That is where the term ”Minute Men” came from.

I was an army draftee back in 1969. I spent two years, essentially, learning self-discipline. This would be little different than being “drafted,” which has not only been utilized by the U.S. Army in days past, but was undoubtedly originally administered for State Militias. 

---- 

The opinions expressed in the Bay County Coastal are solely those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Bay County Coastal, its owners, or its contractors. We strive to provide a platform for diverse perspectives and encourage respectful and thoughtful discourse among our readers.
---

Update: 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court decided on a request to cancel a temporary pause (stay) issued by the D.C. Circuit Court on April 11, 2025. This pause stopped the government from deporting certain noncitizens, suspected Venezuelan gang members, under a law called the Alien Enemies Act, until a lower court hearing on April 24, 2025. The government wanted the Supreme Court to lift this pause, saying it blocked important national security actions.

The Supreme Court refused to cancel the pause. The majority said the government didn’t prove the pause caused serious harm or was wrongly issued. The pause was short-term, lasting only until the hearing, and kept things as they were. The Court noted the government could appeal quickly if unhappy with the lower court’s decision.

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Gorsuch, disagreed, saying the pause wrongly slowed down the President’s national security plans. They argued the D.C. Circuit shouldn’t have stepped in, as the lower court’s order wasn’t final, and the pause weakened the government’s authority.

Justice Jackson also disagreed but for a different reason. She said the Supreme Court shouldn’t have reviewed the pause at all, as it wasn’t a final decision, and the Court was acting too soon.

In short, the Supreme Court kept the temporary pause in place, letting the lower court hearing go forward, with most justices seeing no reason to step in, while others worried about court overreach or national security delays.