SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly engaged in a heated exchange with Democrat Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg on Friday’s episode of The Megyn Kelly Show, disputing the authority of a federal judge to override executive immigration actions taken by President Donald Trump under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
The disagreement centered on U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg’s decision to temporarily block deportations after President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act on March 15 to target members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The Trump administration announced the immediate arrest and removal of over 200 gang members to El Salvador following the order. Hours later, Judge Boasberg issued a halt on those deportations.
Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement
MORE NEWS: Woke City Council Votes to Ignore Gunfire to Avoid ‘Overpolicing’ in Massachusetts Sanctuary City
On March 28, Trump’s Department of Justice petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and overturn Boasberg’s ruling. During the discussion on her show, Kelly questioned whether the judiciary has the authority to interpret executive determinations involving national security threats and foreign incursions.
“OK, but Dave, how is it that the federal district courts are allowed, in the argument of the ACLU, to decide whether there’s been an incursion, a predatory incursion, by a foreign government? How are they better positioned to determine that than the commander-in-chief and the sitting president of the United States?”
Aronberg defended the judge’s role, stating, “Well, they’re entitled to interpret the Alien Enemies Act, and here the judge is saying there’s not been a declaration of war, and so this act does not apply, does not give the executive branch the authority to make these decisions —”
Kelly interrupted to clarify the scope of the act: “No, no, no, so let me stop you there, because there’s three different ways that you can get the Alien Enemies Act to apply. Act of war, invasion, or predatory incursion. Trump seems to be citing the latter two.”
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
She continued, “They don’t seem to be arguing that we’re necessarily at war with Venezuela, but, for sure, he’s saying, if you look at his declaration, it says invasion and predatory incursion. So there’s no question that you can have those other things without Congress.”
Aronberg acknowledged that the executive branch has interpretative authority but maintained that courts can intervene if they believe those actions overstep legal bounds.
“The executive branch has the ability to interpret that statute as it wants. just as the judiciary could say no, no, no you've gone too far.”
MORE NEWS: Gutfeld Wrecks Colbert’s “Safe” Comedy Legacy While Mocking His Exit from Late Night [WATCH]
Kelly then challenged the judicial role further, asking, “How is it not a political question whether we’ve suffered a predatory invasion from Venezuela?”
Aronberg responded by saying it would ultimately be up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. He attempted to point out that the Court had not taken immediate action, calling it “telling,” but Kelly cut in again to compare it to past wartime decisions.
“They never questioned our declaration of war after 9-11. They didn’t question our declaration of war with respect to Iraq or Afghanistan. The courts have typically been reluctant to go anywhere near that kind of political declaration because they understand when you’re talking about political questions, the president is at the apex of his powers and the courts, to say they’re at their nadir, they have nothing. They have none.”
The case was brought to the Supreme Court after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Boasberg’s temporary block on deportations on March 26. On Thursday, Boasberg questioned Department of Justice attorneys on whether they had violated his order by proceeding with removals.
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case.
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.