The Punch Line first: The D.C. judicial shadow government overreached itself. Abuse of the Administrative Procedure Act has been effectively addressed by The Supremes.
And Boasberg’s attempt to seize presidential powers created a constitutional moment of crisis that may unwind the coup.
This from frontpagemag.com.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump was not an unqualified triumph for the Trump administration’s deportations of foreign gang members, but it was a definite rebuke not just to Judge Boasberg, but to the entire D.C. Circuit Court shadow government.
The ACLU filed J.G.G. v. Trump in defense of five Venezuelan inmates in New York and Texas. All of the men claimed they were not gang members and there was no indication any of them were being deported, denying them any actual standing for coming before the court.
Especially before Judge James Boasberg who is thousands of miles away in Washington D.C.
Despite the lack of standing and the case being filed in the wrong venue, Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court, not only blocked the deportation of all gang members back to Venezuela, but ordered planes then over international airspace carrying gang members to turn around and bring them back to the United States.
Boasberg fumed over the planes not being turned around on his mere word and threatened the Justice Department with repercussions for not recognizing his power over not only the entire country, but also the entire planet.
But why was a judge from the D.C. Circuit Court
on a case involving inmates in Texas?
The answer: Leftist organizations and the judges of the D.C. Circuit Court were using one weird trick to seize power over the entire country (if not the entire planet) and transform themselves into a shadow government able to block any Trump administration move.
The Supreme Court’s ruling vacating Boasberg’s order stated:
[T]he detainees are confined in Texas,
so venue is improper in the District of Columbia.
The Supremes then directed:
[The appropriate] venue lies in the district of confinement.
So, how did a D.C. judge ever get involved at all?
In Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence he noted:
[The] only question is where that judicial review should occur. That venue question turns on whether these transfer claims belong in habeas corpus proceedings or instead may be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Supreme’s ruling even noted:
[I]nitially the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims [and stated that] their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas.
Kavanaugh then laid out a brief history of detainees, including those terrorists at Gitmo, bringing claims under habeas corpus rather than, strangely, under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Administrative Procedure Act had been created in response to the rise of a vast unaccountable government bureaucracy under FDR.
The APA was supposed to stop the administrative state from turning into exactly the kind of self-governing machine it grew into which FDR had described as threatening to ‘develop a fourth branch of government for which there is no sanction in the Constitution.’
It was not meant to block presidents from executing their policies or subject every one of those policies to the review of the D.C. Circuit Court.
The D.C. Circuit Court, however, has enabled every Leftist ‘resistance’ group to go ‘judge shopping’ and file APA complaints to block anything and everything President Trump does.
And so, the ACLU appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court, wielding the Administrative Procedure Act, to challenge the question of whether President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (which predated the APA by 148 years) applied and what could be defined as wartime.
The ACLU was asking Boasberg to block President Trump’s use of presidential powers based on an act meant to check bureaucratic overreach. And Judge Boasberg tried to seize control of U.S. forces abroad from President Trump in the name of an act meant to regulate agencies.
The Supreme Court’s response to this unconstitutional abomination was milder than it deserved.
What gave the ACLU and Boasberg the idea they could get away with it?
The ACLU had previously sued the Trump administration for removing materials falsely describing the existence of a ‘transgender’ society as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act by ‘removing articles without a reasoned basis’ as if that were a matter subject to the APA.
In another case, ‘Judge’ Ana Reyes, a Uruguayan activist lawyer appointed by Biden as the first gay ‘Latinx’ judge in the D.C. Circuit Court, blocked the removal of mentally ill individuals who hallucinate the idea they are members of some other sex than their biological one, by claiming that it is “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext, [i]ts language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit” and argued, despite the mountain of evidence, that the Department of Defense had “not provided a legitimate reason for banning all transgender troops” and therefore violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Reyes had confused the Administrative Procedure Act with her own personal opinion and rather than ruling on the legality of a policy based on actual laws, abused the APA to seize power over the Pentagon to promote her own favored social and sexual worldviews in the APA’s name.
But the Supreme Court has begun shooting down some APA abuses.
In its response to a Biden judge in Massachusetts blocking the Trump administration from ending education grants that violate its ban on DEI, the court noted that Judge Myong Joun and the court “lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA” and that monetary cases involving the government are supposed to go to the Court of Federal Claims.
The APA has become a favored weapon of choice whether the issue at hand is financial, foreign policy, deporting illegal aliens, or even publishing materials about the existence of transgenderism on government websites. During the first term of the administration, leftist groups had taken to boasting of having entire “teams of APA litigators and experts.”
And with a 93% loss rate for the Trump administration
in APA cases, the judicial coup was a sound strategy.
All a leftist judge had to do was declare the Trump administration’s actions were “poorly reasoned” or lacked “sufficient rationale” and would override the president’s orders.
The APA enabled a massive shift of power from the executive branch to district courts, and to the D.C. Circuit Court which had seized virtually unlimited power from both the president and local courts and judges in the process creating an unelected shadow government.
God help America abuse of the APA has been brought to an end.
