The Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling in J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump, delivering a clear message to the D.C. Circuit Court regarding its overreach in immigration cases. The case involved five Venezuelan detainees in New York and Texas facilities who, despite lacking evidence of imminent deportation or proper standing, managed to have their case heard by D.C. Circuit Court Chief Judge James Boasberg.
In an unprecedented move, Judge Boasberg not only attempted to halt deportations of gang members to Venezuela but also ordered aircraft already in international airspace to return to U.S. territory. When his orders weren’t immediately followed, he threatened the Justice Department with consequences for failing to recognize his authority.
The Supreme Court’s intervention highlighted a controversial legal strategy that has allowed D.C. Circuit judges to exercise
extraordinary control over national policy. The court’s ruling emphasized that venue for such cases properly belongs in the district where detainees are confined – in this instance, Texas.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion addressed the core legal issue: whether such cases should be handled through habeas corpus proceedings or under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The detainees had initially included habeas claims but later dropped them in favor of pursuing an APA strategy.
The APA, originally created to prevent FDR’s administrative state from becoming an unchecked fourth branch of government, has paradoxically become a tool for activist groups to challenge presidential policies through the D.C. Circuit Court. The ACLU utilized this approach to question President Trump’s implementation of the Alien Enemies Act, despite the latter predating the APA by nearly 150 years.
This legal maneuver has been repeatedly employed by opposition groups. In previous cases, the ACLU challenged the removal of
transgender-related materials from government websites under the APA. Similarly, Biden appointee Judge Ana Reyes blocked military policies regarding transgender service members by citing the APA, effectively substituting personal views for administrative law.
However, recent Supreme Court decisions have begun to curtail such APA abuses. In a separate case involving education grants and DEI policies, the court ruled that Judge Myong Joun in Massachusetts lacked jurisdiction under the APA to order government payments, directing such matters to the Court of Federal Claims instead.
During Trump’s first term, leftist organizations boasted dedicated teams of APA litigators, achieving a remarkable 93% success rate in cases against the administration. The strategy effectively shifted substantial power from the executive branch to district courts, particularly the D.C. Circuit Court, creating what critics describe as an unelected shadow government.
Judge Boasberg’s attempted assertion of control over international military operations represents a significant overreach that may ultimately lead to reform of this judicial mechanism. The Supreme Court’s ruling signals growing concern over the transformation of the APA from its intended purpose as a check on bureaucratic overreach into a tool for judicial activism.
The case highlights an ongoing constitutional tension between executive authority and judicial oversight, with the D.C. Circuit Court’s expansive interpretation of the APA at its center. As the Supreme Court continues to examine these issues, the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary may be poised for significant readjustment.