Balance of power in focus at federal hearing as Trump’s showdown with judiciary continues

Geoff Bennett:

In a U.S. appeals court today, the Trump administration challenged a federal judge's decision to stop the deportations of alleged gang members using a rare wartime authority.

Amna Nawaz:

The three-judge panel has yet to rule, but there was one apparent point of consensus among two of the judges, agreeing the judiciary does have the authority to review President Trump's actions.

It's the latest chapter in the ongoing showdown between President Trump and the judiciary.

Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, joins us now with the latest.

So, Laura, this was a nearly two-hour-long hearing in this D.C. appeals court on the Trump administration's use of this centuries-old Alien Enemies Act. What stood out to you?

Laura Barron-Lopez:

So, this three-judge panel includes judges appointed by President George W. Bush, Barack Obama, as well as Donald Trump.

And there was one big point of agreement among two of the judges that spoke the most during the arguments. I'm talking about Judge Justin Walker, who is an appointee of President Trump, and an Obama appointee, Patricia Millett.

And they were both skeptical of the Trump administration's arguments that essentially the president's actions are beyond judicial review. So they both said they believe that the judiciary can review this.

Now, Judge Justin Walker focused his questions on whether or not D.C. was the right venue, saying maybe this lawsuit should be brought somewhere else. Now, Judge Patricia Millett focused her questioning on due process. And she basically said that there was no record that the people that were deported under the Alien Enemies were necessarily Tren de Aragua, or if they were maybe victims of Tren de Aragua.

And, specifically, Judge Millett said that there were planeloads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify these people who were deported, that Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here, referring to due process and hearing boards that were held the last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked during World War II.

The final big moment during the hearing, Amna, was that the Justice Department lawyer said that, if the appeals court ruled in their favor, the government would immediately resume mass deportations under Alien Enemies without giving notice or without due process.

Amna Nawaz:

So, it was Judge Boasberg who first ruled to block the deportations under that Alien Enemies Act before this appeals hearing. He stood by that ruling. Tell us what he had to say. And also did this appeals court appear likely to uphold his ruling?

Laura Barron-Lopez:

There's no way to know right now how the appeals court is going to rule. But Judge Boasberg did reaffirm his ruling blocking the Trump administration from using the wartime powers for deportations.

And in a 37-page opinion shortly before this appeals court hearing, Judge Boasberg said that he believed that the: "Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on another equally fundamental theory. Before they," meaning the migrants, "may be deported,they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the act applies to them at all."

So, again, a similar argument to what Judge Millett was making in the hearing, that ultimately they believe that there needs to be due process here.

Amna Nawaz:

And, of course, this whole court battle is playing out as the Trump administration continues its campaign against members of the judiciary, particularly Judge Boasberg. What should we understand about that?

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Across the board, Trump officials have been criticizing and questioning the authority of the judiciary.

Elon Musk has repeatedly said that Judge Boasberg should be impeached. And that's part of a pattern. We did a review, Amna, of Musk's posts on social media, his X platform. And Musk has made at least 94 posts criticizing the judiciary and their decisions since January.

And other members of the Trump administration have jumped on board, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Seb Gorka, an adviser to the president.

Pam Bondi (R), U.S. Attorney General Nominee: This is an out-of-control judge, a federal judge trying to control our entire foreign policy. And he cannot do it.

Sebastian Gorka, Senior Director For Counterterrorism:

And there is one person, according to the Constitution, according to the statutes of the nation, who has the right to decide who can be in America, who are the aliens, who are the foreigners who are allowed into the nation and who we keep out. That individual is the commander in chief. And that man is Donald Trump.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

In addition to those two officials, President Trump has also attacked Judge Boasberg and the judicial branch, calling Judge Boasberg — quote — "conflicted" and saying that he should be disbarred, Amna.

Amna Nawaz:

Laura, more broadly, what kind of response have we seen to this tension between the president and the judiciary?

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Former federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, a conservative, said that Trump is declaring a war on the judiciary.

He wrote in The New York Times today that — quote — "No one wants murderers or other criminals to be allowed to stay in this country. But to rid the country of them, the president must first follow the Constitution. Judge Boasberg does not want to assume the role of president. The president wants to assume the role of the judge."

Now, Judge Luttig was ultimately optimistic that the judiciary would stand their ground here and provide checks and balances on the president. Other constitutional scholars I talked to said that it would take much more than just the judiciary to keep the president in line here, Amna.

Amna Nawaz:

Laura Barron-Lopez with the latest starting us off today.

Laura, thank you.

Laura Barron-Lopez:

Thank you.