As President Donald Trump continues sparring with the nation’s judiciary, and a federal judge declares that the president cannot expedite the deportation of foreign terrorists, Congress is preparing to enter the fray.

Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on Monday that the president cannot use the powers afforded him by the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) foreign terrorist organization without first offering known and accused TdA members due process. While Boasberg did not openly challenge the legality of the Alien Enemies Act nor the president’s right to invoke it, he ruled that “before they may be deported, [accused TdA members] are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all. As the government itself concedes, the awesome power granted by the Act may be brought only to bear on those who are in fact, ‘alien enemies.’”

The case originated when the Trump administration deported approximately 250 Venezuelan nationals whom law enforcement had identified as TdA members after the president issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act and the TdA had been formally designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. At least five of those deported claimed that they were not members of TdA, prompting Boasberg to issue a temporary restraining order demanding that the planes deporting the TdA members be returned to the U.S. The Trump administration refuted Boasberg’s order, with officials like immigration policy architect and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller clarifying that the TdA members had already been deported when the judge issued his order.

In his ruling Monday, Boasberg admitted that the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, which he had originally contested, was fully constitutional. In fact, when Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman used the Act during World War II to detain and deport Japanese, German, and Italian nationals, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Act’s constitutionality and further decreed that the president’s use of the Act is not subject to judicial review. “As Congress explicitly recognized … some statutes ‘preclude judicial review,’” the court stated in 1948. It continued, “Barring questions of interpretation and constitutionality, the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 is such a statute. Its terms, purpose, and construction leave no doubt. … The very nature of the President’s power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion.”

Boasberg’s temporary restraining order and subsequent ruling have become a flashpoint in a larger and growing conflict between the Trump administration and numerous lower court judges. Thus far, district court judges have imposed at least 15 nationwide injunctions against executive orders and actions enacted by the president in a three-month span, far surpassing the number of similar injunctions imposed upon presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden over the course of their entire presidencies. The Trump administration has so far not violated the numerous court orders impeding the president’s agenda but has requested relief from the Supreme Court on several occasions.

Most recently, the Trump administration asked the nation’s highest court to halt an injunction that would force the administration to rehire over 16,000 federal employees who had been fired as part of the president’s efforts to purge waste and fraud from the executive branch. Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California had previously ordered the U.S. Departments of Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs to reinstate thousands of probationary employees dismissed by the Trump administration. In its petition Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the Supreme Court for “an immediate administrative stay of the district court’s order pending the Court’s consideration of this application.”

“The court’s preliminary injunction … let third parties hijack the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce,” wrote acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris on behalf of the Trump administration. She continued, “And, like many other recent orders, the court’s extraordinary reinstatement order violates the separation of powers, arrogating to a single district court the Executive Branch’s powers of personnel management on the flimsiest of grounds and the hastiest of timelines.” Harris asserted, “That is no way to run a government. This Court should stop the ongoing assault on the constitutional structure before further damage is wrought.”

But the Trump administration isn’t the only one trying to prevent judicial overreach. While members of Congress have suggested possible efforts to curb the sweeping impact of nationwide injunctions, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have now determined to act. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) recently unveiled the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, a piece of legislation aimed at preventing individual district court judges from imposing broad restrictions on presidential authority. “We have a crisis on the bench right now and not just with this or any single judge,” Issa said in a statement. The congressman asserted that his bill “is the comprehensive solution we need to ensure that this problem does not occur anywhere in our federal judiciary and resets the proper and appropriate balance in our courts.”

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a similar piece of legislation in the Senate. Hawley’s Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevent Act of 2025 would expressly prohibit District Courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, instead limiting district courts’ orders only to the specific parties involved in the case or the relevant judicial district. “Unelected district judges are usurping the authority of a duly-elected president and dictating national policy for 330 million Americans,” Hawley said in a statement. He added, “Congress must stop this unconstitutional weaponization of the judiciary. My bill would be a critical step toward doing just that.”

Discussing such legislation on Monday night’s episode of “Washington Watch,” attorney Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, said, “The issue of nationwide injunctions has become an increasingly hot contentious topic in recent years as administrations switch parties. Republican or Democrat, the uptick and use of nationwide injunctions has been a trend.” He continued, “There is some guidance there in the Constitution, and it provides that Congress can regulate the federal court system pretty extensively. There’s a Supreme Court that’s prescribed by the Constitution, but in large measure, other than that, Congress can regulate the courts.”

“The federal lower courts are a creation of Congress. Only the U.S. Supreme Court is a creation of the Constitution. So this bill is an exercise of the constitutional authority granted to Congress to regulate the lower courts,” Weber explained, referring to Issa’s legislation. He clarified that courts have “historically” served to resolve disputes or conflicts between specific parties, in which one party will allege an injury and a court will issue relief specific to that party. “But,” Weber went on, “a nationwide injunction applies to everyone nationally, regardless of whether they are a party to the lawsuit, regardless of whether they’ve been personally injured. They’re subject to the nationwide injunction.”

Noting that the appeals process the Trump administration is now forced to go through for each judicial imposition could take months or even years, Weber said, “In the meantime, a new policy has been prescribed at the hands of the judge issuing the nationwide injunction.” He concluded, “After the injunctions have been issued, you have a new national policy until there is an alteration of that injunction. So, in that sense, we’re out of step with the Constitution…”