Several judges have issued injunctions against Donald Trump and his efforts to cut the size and scope of government. Other judges have issued injunctions to stop the deportation of illegal immigrants including members of terrorist groups. The left celebrates these activist judges, Chuck Schumer even admitting in a public interview that they were using activist judges to thwart Donald Trump's efforts. Clearly the Democrats, with some of their Republican friends, like to remind us that we are a nation ruled by laws but only the laws they like.

Let's use Judge Boasberg trying to stop the flights of Tren de Aragua gang members going to Venezuela. Boasberg Issued the injunction saying the 1798 Alien Enemies Act likely only gave the president authority to take said action against a declared enemy in a wartime situation. Having read the act I can tell you that is categorically false. I can also tell you that the three times presidents have used the act, it was used prior to the start of war as well as during a war. There is a specific statement in the act that also says the president can use the power granted under the act when there is an invasion or predatory incursion.

Joe Biden declared Tren de Aragua a terrorist organization. The Venezuelan government specifically freed members of the gang from its prisons telling them to leave the country and provided assistance for them to get to the United States. They did not come here to get jobs and build a future for their family. They came here to conduct criminal activities which by definition are predatory in nature.

That being said, federal courts do not have the authority to issue the injunctions. There are two significant cases dealing directly with this issue. Marbury v, Madison from 1798 and the state of Mississippi v. Madison from 1803. These cases dealt directly with the authority granted to the executive branch, which is vested in one person, the President of the United States. Marbury delineated the president's hours into two different types;  and Mississippi dealt with ramifications of Marbury and whether or not the president was required to take some actions. It further confirmed the separation of powers between the three branches of government.

The justices determined that the president has two types of power, ministerial and executive or political. No one disagrees that it is the authority and responsibility of the executive branch to administer the day-to-day operations of the federal government, including implementing the laws passed by the legislative branch. But in both cases the plaintiffs were trying to force a sitting president to take actions.

Justice Marshall was behind the decision in Marbury. He wrote that ministerial duties of the executive branch are those that are specifically outlined in a piece of legislation that becomes law. The president is required to take those actions to implement and to enforce the law as described in the law. Those actions are not discretionary and are required. Thus the Supreme Court determined that the judicial branch has authority to force the executive branch to comply with the law as passed by Congress and signed by the executive branch.

However, in most cases it is within the authority of the President and the executive branch to determine how to implement and enforce most of the laws that are passed by the legislative branch. That can include action or inaction. It can also include interpretation to an extent of existing laws. But these decisions are discretionary and fully within the scope of authority granted to the executive branch under the separation of powers in the constitution. The justices in both cases agreed unanimously that allowing the judicial branch to have the authority to force a president to take action that is within the discretionary authority of the branch would give the judicial branch more power than the executive branch, thus violating the balance of power mandated by the Constitution

In the Tren de Aragua case you might say it is a question of fact for a judge or jury to determine if the acts by the Venezuelan government and this gang amount to a predatory incursion. You might be right. Regardless it is clear the judicial branch does not have the authority to tell the President that he must stop the deportations because that falls within the discretionary authority of the office.

Lastly there are two arguments made by the left against the President's actions. First, he is using a law that is over 200 years old. It is still a law, and the principle of the law applies. If you don't like the law, you can repeal the law through the legislative process. Or the judicial branch has the authority to determine the law is unconstitutional. Neither of those things have happened, so the law is applicable no matter how old it is.

Secondly, many on the left are complaining that Donald Trump is ignoring a court order. I did not hear the same outcry when Joe Biden ignored the Supreme Court decisions on multiple occasions. To the contrary, they celebrated his actions because they disagreed with the court's decision. In those cases, no one disagreed with the court's ruling based upon the applicable laws. Neither was there a question of jurisdictional authority.

If you truly want to live in a society governed by the rule of law then it has to apply equally to everyone.