The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Trump administration can deport migrants under the Alien Enemies Act — with due process guardrails — amounts to a rebuke for Judge James Boasberg, who has become one of President Trump’s bêtes noires on the bench. 

The high court also stripped the case from Judge Boasberg’s courtroom, determining that he overstepped his jurisdiction and that the “case and controversy” belongs in Texas, where the migrants were held before many were sent to El Salvador. The judge cancelled a hearing set for Tuesday but has declined to dismiss the case, despite the Nine’s ruling that it belongs in Texas. 

Mr. Trump has called Judge Boasberg a “radical Left lunatic” for enjoining his plan to use the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan migrants the administration alleges are members of the Tren de Aragaua gang, a designated terrorist organization. Now, the Nine have ruled that those deportations can resume — but that the case will unfold in the Lone Star State. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who ascertained that Texas was the proper venue, was a law school classmate and friend of Judge Boasberg at Yale Law. 

The canceled hearing was supposed to be devoted to whether Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining order against use of the Alien Enemies Act ought to be converted to a more durable preliminary injunction. The judge has also held a series of parallel hearings to determine whether the government willfully disobeyed  orders — first verbal and then written — to turn around planes carrying migrants bound for El Salvador. 

Judge Boasberg vowed in one of those hearings that he would “get to the bottom” of whether the administration “violated” his instructions and determine “who ordered this and what the consequences will be.” The judge also accused government lawyers of engaging in “intemperate, disrespectful language” and reckoned that “the policy ramifications of this are incredibly troublesome and problematic and concerning.”  

The government has invoked the state secrets doctrine and argues that the details of those flights are matters of national security, a position that has been bolstered by sworn affidavits from Secretary Noem and Secretary Rubio. Judge Boasberg has now asked the lawyers for the migrant plaintiffs to indicate how they wish to proceed given the Supreme Court’s reversal of his order. 

Attorney General Bondi told reporters outside the White House on Tuesday that the Supreme Court “has spoken loud and clear” and that Judge Boasberg “has no jurisdiction” over the case. Judge Boasberg has also drawn criticism from the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, who reckoned that his restraining order “had no lawful basis” and that a “single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier.”

Last month a Republican lawmaker, Brandon Gill, introduced in the House articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg. That prompted Chief Justice Roberts to issue an unusual statement declaring: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent appeared to echo Judge Boasberg’s language. She wrote that the “government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this court now rewards the government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a nation and a court of law, should be better than this.”

Mr. Trump, though, took a victory lap after the ruling, writing on Truth Social: “The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself. A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA.”