U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has hailed a recent Supreme Court decision as a “landmark victory for the rule of law,” while strongly criticizing lower court judges who attempted to block the Trump administration’s deportation policies.
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to utilize a wartime authority to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang. In a 5-4 ruling, the court overturned orders by U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, that had prevented the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport the gang members to El Salvador.
READ: U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi Seeks Death Penalty In UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder Case
The Supreme Court’s order stated that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented from the ruling.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Attorney General Bondi expressed her approval, stating on X, “Following tonight’s landmark Supreme Court ruling, the American people can rest assured that @Sec_Noem, @RealTomHoman and I will direct our assets to scour the country for any remnants of Tren De Aragua and DEPORT THEM.”
READ: Political Cash And Courtroom Conduct: Broward County Judge’s Discipline Dilemma
Bondi further criticized the lower court’s actions Tuesday, saying, “These liberal District judges thought that they could control our entire country’s policy. Donald Trump’s policy on keeping America safe, they cannot do it, and this was again a landmark ruling for the rule of law yesterday, and it’s so important because these flights will now continue these terrorists. They are foreign terrorists. They are alien enemies to our country, and we will continue to deport them.”
The Trump administration had argued that Judge Boasberg exceeded his authority in his March order, asserting that the issue “presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security related operations in this country—the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary, through TROs.”
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor countered, stating that the government’s conduct throughout the case “poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law” and that the Supreme Court’s decision to “reward the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible.”
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
