This nation faces a constitutional crisis. Not because Elon and Trump are securing borders and cutting waste and fraud in government. But due to activist jurists acting like dictators from the bench without citing any law that supports their orders. It's long past time for the Supreme Court to engage and act and for Congress to act.
Judicial overreach is the term used to describe circumstances where the judiciary starts behaving like a super-legislature or an ad hoc executive. Unfortunately, that kind of behavior has been particularly prevalent in immigration policy. Here are just two recent examples:
• U.S. District Court Judge Leo T. Sorokin agreed to hear the case of Dr. Rasha Alawieh. Dr. Alawieh, a Lebanese citizen, had been admitted to the U.S. temporarily with an employment-related status. When she attempted to return to the U.S., she was denied readmission. U.S. Customs and Border Protection had uncovered evidence that she is a supporter of Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group.
• Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order enjoining the deportation of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. That legislation allows for the expedited removal of enemy foreign nationals whenever “any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government.”
These actions were prime examples of “judicial activism,” when judges interpret statutes to further their preferred policy goals rather than according to established legal guidelines.
In 1950, in a case called U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that “The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes,” and “it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of Government to exclude a given alien.”
In other words, the decision to exclude Dr. Alawieh belonged solely to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Judge Sorokin had no authority to review that decision because it involved an unadmitted, nonresident alien with no right to be admitted to the U.S.
Judges out of bounds in blocking deportation of terrorist threats
Anyone who has taken a basic civics course can tell you that the United States government has three coequal branches. Congress makes the laws, the executive carries them out and the judiciary interprets them. These are separate, independent functions carried out as part of a system of checks and balances. When one branch starts intruding into the wheelhouse of the others, the system of checks and balances collapses like a house of cards built on a wobbly table.Judicial overreach is the term used to describe circumstances where the judiciary starts behaving like a super-legislature or an ad hoc executive. Unfortunately, that kind of behavior has been particularly prevalent in immigration policy. Here are just two recent examples:
• U.S. District Court Judge Leo T. Sorokin agreed to hear the case of Dr. Rasha Alawieh. Dr. Alawieh, a Lebanese citizen, had been admitted to the U.S. temporarily with an employment-related status. When she attempted to return to the U.S., she was denied readmission. U.S. Customs and Border Protection had uncovered evidence that she is a supporter of Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group.
• Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order enjoining the deportation of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. That legislation allows for the expedited removal of enemy foreign nationals whenever “any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government.”
These actions were prime examples of “judicial activism,” when judges interpret statutes to further their preferred policy goals rather than according to established legal guidelines.
In 1950, in a case called U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that “The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes,” and “it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of Government to exclude a given alien.”
In other words, the decision to exclude Dr. Alawieh belonged solely to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Judge Sorokin had no authority to review that decision because it involved an unadmitted, nonresident alien with no right to be admitted to the U.S.
