Can judge hold Trump in contempt for refusing to return deportees?
My legal analysis. Watch the Dershow on Youtube, Rumble, Spotify and Apple.
Discussion about this post
No posts
© 2025 Alan Dershowitz
Substack is the home for great culture
My legal analysis. Watch the Dershow on Youtube, Rumble, Spotify and Apple.
No posts
Short answer: In the words of President Andrew Jackson, "If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/andrew-jackson-bank-veto-message-1832
This judge - and all other judges so situated - and the appellate courts, and the Supreme Court, may all, in unison, find President Trump guilty of contempt, if they so desire - but the Judicial Branch has no constitutional power to guide the hand of the President, or enforce its will upon him.
if the President were obliged to obey the orders of these appointed judges, the unelected and unconstitutional Administrative State - exercising powers not enumerated in the Constitution, and reserved to the people or the States under the Tenth Amendment - wins. But this was never the intent of the Founders when they established a limited government with clearly enumerated and stated powers - and it was put in plain language by the Tenth Amendment in the original Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified. My advice to President Trump is to ignore those orders and continue to act in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, and the original intent of the Constitution. Let the courts try to enforce their orders - what will they do, arrest the President? Or arrest those acting under his authority, which is the same thing? And such moves must be resisted, with force if need be, for what is at stake is the final restoration of Constitutional rule to the United States - or the establishment of unaccountable and unlimited administrative tyranny - the choice which has been so starkly presented. Matters are at a head, and the Constitution must be upheld, against all enemies, foreign and in this case, domestic. The unconstitutional Administrative State, put very largely in place by Franklin Roosevelt and largely staffed by Democrats, which has cemented Democrats in power and continued their policies, regardless of elections and the will of the electorate, must be ended and utterly abolished, and Constitutional rule re-established:
Boasberg and any other judges - including SCOTUS - wants to go down this path they're inviting Pres. Trump's Constitutional exercise of power to protect the nation from all enemies, foreign AND domestic by military arrest, imprisonment and indefinite detention pending military tribunal of these anti-constitutional black-robed threats to the national security of the United States of America. His charge. His responsibility. And his alone. Boasberg is engaged in a seditious conspiracy, an insurrection against the United States of America and its duly and lawfully elected leader. And if Roberts, others want to add their names to the conspirators they'll get the same treatment.
NOBODY is above the law! If not a president, as we heard ad nauseum the past four years then certainly not a judge. Though they think themselves to be the law, they are not. Especially when their idea of law is repugnant to the Constitution.
This isn't a matter of what the *Courts* have to say about his power to execute the removal of Boasberg as a threat to our nation. They are co-equal, not superior to the President. Who has the police powers and military under his authority. A power the Founders explicitly didn't want judges to possess.
The ONLY constraint on a president exercising his unshared, unchallengeable power to protect the nation from ALL enemies, including domestic lawfare insurrectionists is public opinion. And I can assure Dershowitz, Boasberg, Jeffries, Roberts, et al, that Pres. Trump has public opinion on HIS side in any constitutional crisis that Boasberg and his fellow lawfare conspirators to sedition and insurrection have inflicted on this nation and the office of the presidency.
Whatever informs Dershowitz about the lawyerly dissection of the judiciary's power is immaterial. It's about what the public has to say about it. The law, the constitution and legal precedence has been rendered moot in these matters. The lawfare insurrection of Boasberg, et al is extra-constitutional, not lawful. There's no impetus or requirement that Trump fight them on their unlawful repugnant to the Constitution field. He can, nay, he MUST remove them from positions of power to destroy the republic. F'ing Around time is over. Transitioned into Find Out time.