Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
The showdown between the Trump administration and Judge James Boasberg raises the fundamental question of whether a nation founded on the biblical principles of justice, order, and genuine compassion will remain faithful to that heritage.
For years, America has experienced a flood of illegal immigrants that has brought not just everyday men, women, and children looking for a better life but gangs of MS-13 killers, Tren de Aragua thugs, and cartel soldiers. And these are hardened warriors who see our neighborhoods as territory to conquer, not a refuge to respect.
In J.G.G. v. Trump, the Department of Justice is now fighting to restore the President’s lawful authority with the case that was heard earlier this week by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Its legal arguments make clear what’s at stake, arguing that the courts have “no jurisdiction to review or enjoin the President’s exercise of authority under Article II and the AEA.”
This isn’t a novel legal theory — it’s based on the D.C. Circuit’s own precedent in Citizens Protective League v. Clark (1946), which recognized the law confers “[u]nreviewable power in the President” in these matters.
This case is more than a legal battle, however. It’s a test of whether America will remain a sovereign nation or surrender its borders to judicial activism. If a single federal judge can override the President’s constitutional authority to defend the country from violent foreign criminals, then we are no longer governed by the rule of law but by the whims of unelected elites who prioritize ideology over national security.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 isn’t some dusty relic — it’s a tool our founders gave us because they understood something we’ve forgotten: A nation that cannot defend its borders won’t remain a nation for long. This law isn’t about xenophobia; it’s about survival.
As the Department of Justice argues in its current motion, the Supreme Court itself has observed that the AEA is “as unlimited” a grant of power “as the legislature could make it” (Ludecke v. Watkins, 1948). The law encompasses “matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility.”
When Trump uses this law to remove Venezuelan gang members who are terrorizing American communities, he’s not breaking new ground — he’s doing exactly what the Constitution expects a President to do. Yet somehow, a single federal judge thinks he knows better than both our Founders and our elected commander-in-chief. The court has blocked these deportations with the ridiculous claim that the necessary conditions for invoking the Act haven’t been met.
The judge’s understanding of “invasion” appears limited to formal military incursions. However, as the DOJ’s motion demonstrates, the accepted definition of “invasion” is far broader in law. Their brief cites Black’s Law Dictionary, defining invasion as “[a]n intrusion or unwelcome incursion of some kind; esp., the hostile or forcible encroachment on another’s rights,” or “[t]he arrival somewhere of people or things who are not wanted there.”
The Proclamation makes clear that TdA, “in conjunction with a narco-terrorism enterprise backed by the illegitimate regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.” This isn’t political hyperbole but is the legal finding of the President based on intelligence and national security assessments that courts have neither the competence nor authority to second-guess.
What’s particularly compelling in the government’s motion is their argument that TdA qualifies as a “foreign nation or government” under the Act due to its extensive connections with the Maduro regime. The Proclamation details how TdA’s growth was facilitated by the former governor of Aragua, Tareck El Aissami, who later became vice president under Maduro. The motion explains that “Maduro’s connections to the group, via the regime-sponsored narco-terrorism enterprise Cártel de los Soles, are also clear.”
The government points out that “criminal organizations such as TdA have taken greater control over Venezuelan territory, resulting in the creation of a ‘hybrid criminal state'” that functions effectively as a government in the areas it controls. This is not unprecedented: The United States has a long history of using war powers against non-state actors with connections to hostile regimes.
Just look at Europe if you want to see where this leads. Nations that once defined Western civilization are now dealing with no-go zones, parallel societies, and the steady erosion of the very values that made them beacons of freedom. They didn’t lose their identity overnight; rather, they surrendered it piece by piece in the name of tolerance without boundaries.
Here’s the brutal truth: When a single federal judge can block the president from removing violent foreign criminals, we’ve abandoned not just constitutional order but basic national self-defense. The DOJ motion highlights a sobering reality: “The determination that an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’ involving enemy aliens is being perpetrated sits at the intersection of two areas textually committed to the political branches: (1) foreign affairs… and (2) immigration policy.”
In matters of national security, as the Supreme Court noted in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the court must give “deference” to “evaluation of the facts by the Executive,” and the balance of the equities must favor the security of the United States above all else.
The current battle over the Alien Enemies Act will determine whether America remains a sovereign nation with the right to protect its citizens or devolves into a borderless zone where foreign predators have more rights than the Americans they victimize.
Before we get lost in legal arguments, let’s remember something fundamental: Government exists to protect its citizens. Romans 13 makes it clear that rulers don’t carry the sword for nothing — they’re God’s servants, bringing punishment on wrongdoers. That’s not just good policy; it’s divine design.
The Bible consistently supports the concept of national boundaries and their defense. In Numbers 20, we see Israel respecting Edom’s borders, even taking a longer route to avoid unauthorized passage. In Nehemiah, God’s people rebuilt walls because they understood that defined boundaries were essential to their survival. Acts 17:26 explicitly states that God “determined the boundaries of their dwelling place” for nations — a clear divine endorsement of defined national territories.
These biblical principles reveal a profound theological truth: God’s sovereignty manifests partly through properly ordered nations with defined boundaries. When we dissolve these boundaries in the name of universal brotherhood, we aren’t transcending God’s design but subverting it.
When the Trump administration uses this law to deport members of Tren de Aragua, they’re not being radical — they’re being responsible. These aren’t dreamers or farm workers; they’re hardened criminals who’ve turned parts of Latin America into slaughterhouses and now want to set up shop here.
As the government’s motion states, TdA has “engaged in mass illegal migration to the United States,” specifically “to further its objectives of harming United States citizens and support Maduro’s regime in undermining democracy.” The Department of Homeland Security has developed a careful process for identifying TdA members, including “previous criminal convictions for TdA-related activities, other court records indicating membership in TdA, surveillance, law enforcement encounters, interviews with the TdA member, testimonies and statements from victims.”
Critics argue these deportations risk sending people back to dangerous conditions, but this misses a crucial point: These gang members are the dangerous conditions. They’re the very reason many legitimate asylum seekers fled their home country in the first place. Allowing TdA, MS-13, and other violent gangs to establish criminal networks here replicates the exact conditions others are escaping.
Let’s be blunt: If we can’t remove foreign gang members who are actively committing crimes in our communities, do we have a country at all? If Venezuelan thugs have more rights than American citizens to safety in their own neighborhoods, what exactly are we even defending anymore?
Yet incredibly, a single federal judge has decided he knows better than the entire executive branch about what constitutes a national security threat. This judge’s ruling isn’t just wrong, it’s dangerous. It handcuffs our ability to protect ourselves using a law specifically designed for this purpose.
This case exposes a cancer in our system: judges who think they should be making policy instead of interpreting law. The Constitution didn’t give judges the power to run our immigration system or manage national security. Those jobs belong primarily to the President and Congress.
When judges legislate from the bench, they replace the wisdom of millions with the preferences of one. This isn’t justice ascending; it’s democracy descending.
As the DOJ motion argues, “When dealing with such ‘sensitive and weighty interests of national security and foreign affairs,’ the court must give ‘deference’ to ‘evaluation of the facts by the Executive,’ and the balance of the equities must favor the security of the United States above all else.”
The Founders weren’t stupid. They gave national security authority to the executive because these matters require immediate action and access to intelligence that judges don’t have. When a district judge can block nationwide security measures with the stroke of a pen, we’ve turned our constitutional design upside down.
This fight over the Alien Enemies Act forces Americans to answer a basic question: Are we still a nation with borders that mean something, or just a geographical area where anyone can come and do anything without consequence?
The current legal dispute isn’t merely academic but instead has profound implications for how we understand sovereignty itself. If the courts continue to restrict the President’s authority to address what he has identified as a national security threat, they effectively render meaningless Congress’s delegation of power through the AEA.
For those committed to religious liberty and constitutional governance, this isn’t merely a policy debate — it’s a fundamental question of whether a nation founded on biblical principles will remain faithful to that heritage. As believers called to seek the welfare of the country where God has placed us, we must engage this issue with both conviction and clarity. Our response must be grounded not in partisan politics but in timeless principles of justice, order, and genuine compassion that flow from Scripture.
The Alien Enemies Act gives us a chance to reaffirm a simple truth: America belongs to Americans, and our government’s first duty is to us. Let’s hope our courts recognize the wisdom in allowing the President to fulfill this sacred obligation.
PHOTO: (Left) U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg; (Right) New York Post headline announcing the Trump administration’s removal of illegal Tren de Argua gang members to an El Salvador prison. CREDIT: U.S. District Court/screenshot Twitter.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
Notifications
