The Department of Justice is apparently no longer willing to play ball with U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, the Washington, D.C.-based activist judge who has spent the past year frustrating the Trump administration’s efforts to keep suspected criminal noncitizens out of the homeland.

This turning point, signaled in a court filing last week, all but guarantees a showdown between Boasberg and government attorneys in the case J.G.G. v. Trump on Monday — and a possible return to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Quick background

President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on March 15 invoking the Alien Enemies Act and declaring Tren de Aragua “a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

The Trump administration subsequently deported hundreds of suspected Venezuelan gangsters — many of whom were credibly accused of murder, robbery, rape, and other crimes — to El Salvador, where they were placed in a Salvadoran prison for terrorists.

‘Defendants intend to immediately appeal.’

In July, the administration had Venezuelan deportees who were imprisoned at the Terrorism Confinement Center repatriated to Venezuela, where they were welcomed home by Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, who has since been deposed.

The deportees’ safe return home evidently wasn’t enough for Boasberg and other activists back in the U.S., including the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the suspected foreign gangsters.

RELATED: Federalism cannot be a shield for sanctuary defiance

Photo by El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images

In December, Boasberg — an Obama-appointed judge who initially tried to stop the deportations and previously helped the Biden FBI spy on Republican lawmakers’ phone records — certified the Venezuelan deportees as a class and ordered the administration to offer them legal relief abroad.

DOJ punches back

DOJ lawyers noted in a filing last week that Boasberg’s demands were unworkable.

For starters, the government lawyers pointed out that remote hearings for all of the suspected Venezuelan gangsters would “present insuperable legal bars and substantial practical problems that together render this an untenable and unacceptable proposal.”

Besides there being “no legal basis for holding remote habeas hearings without custody,” the lawyers noted that the U.S. “cannot enforce perjury or other procedural rules in Venezuela, or even verify the identity of the witnesses.” Additionally there would be no way of ensuring that sensitive or classified information implicated in the proceedings could be protected over “potentially unsecure lines in foreign settings.”

In light of these and other problems with remote hearings, the lawyers noted that “the only jurisdictionally proper means of permitting new habeas proceedings would be for aliens to return to United States custody.”

Bringing the Venezuelans back for proceedings, however, “presents grave national security and foreign policy impediments” — not least because the deportees “have been determined to be members of a foreign terrorist organization” and may lack passports or identity documents.

The lawyers suggested that taking the Venezuelans back into custody would require “diplomacy with top leaders in the Delcy Rodriguez interim regime or foreign sovereigns in third countries and thus raise separation of powers issues.”

Satisfying Boasberg’s order would threaten “material damage to U.S. foreign policy interests in Venezuela” as it would inject an “extremely complicated issue into what is already a delicate situation, potentially negatively affecting U.S. efforts toward stabilization and transition that aim to benefit tens of millions of Venezuelans,” added the lawyers.

The DOJ effectively concluded by telling Boasberg to pound sand: “If, over Defendants’ vehement legal and practical objections, the Court issues an injunction, Defendants intend to immediately appeal.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Tren de aragua, Boasberg, Activist judges, Judgest, District court, Justice department, Doj, Deportation, Immigration, Foreign terrorist organization, Terrorist, Obama, Politics 

In a recent poll from Pew Research Center, a whopping 71% of Democrats said they favored requiring photo ID to vote — a shocking departure from what Democrats like Chuck Schumer appear to believe.

“We’ve got to get this done and we’ve got to get it done very quickly. The SAVE Act is an abomination. It’s Jim Crow 2.0 across the country. We are going to do everything we can to stop it,” Schumer told reporters.

“How is it Jim Crow to ask for ID, a picture ID? That’s what the SAVE Act is. That you’d be required to have picture ID to go in and vote or to register to vote and then to vote. OK, that is not unreasonable,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains.

“You need a photo ID to get a driver’s license to drive a car, or to renew your driver’s license, or replace your lost license, get a learner’s permit. You need a photo ID to rent a car, to pick up a rental car, even if you prepaid it, to buy car insurance, to file auto insurance claims, to register your vehicle, transfer your vehicle’s title,” he continues.

But that’s not all, as Glenn also points out that you need a photo ID to get a parking permit, use car sharing apps, buy an airline ticket in person, to board a commercial flight, and enter the TSA pre-check.

“Is it Jim Crow to ask for photo ID as they scan your eye? Is it racist to ask for photo ID when you check a bag at the airport or when you rent a U-Haul truck or a moving truck, buy a bus or a train ticket in person? Is that really ‘no blacks’?” Glenn asks.

“No blacks can ever go on the bus or the train or an airplane. Really? Really? No, it’s just too hard for them to get a photo ID,” he says, joking, “What a racist.”

And of course, the list of reasons one might need a photo ID is never-ending.

“You want to open a bank account. You want to withdraw a large amount of cash. You want to cash a check, even your own check at many banks … you need a photo ID to deposit cash, to wire money,” Glenn says.

“But let’s get into your daily life of just housing. You want to rent an apartment, you need a photo ID. No blacks have ever rented an apartment? Really? No Hispanics, no blacks. It’s racist to say we need a photo ID voting, because you can’t get a photo ID somehow or another,” he continues.

“Yet you need one to rent a house or an apartment or to apply for public housing,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Upload, Video, Sharing, Video phone, Camera phone, Free, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Chuck schumer, Save act, Jim crow, Photo id, Voting id, Voter id, Immigrants, Black people, Racism, Racism accusation 

America has always protected lawful protest. It has never protected persecution. Some communities now blur that line on purpose, and anyone who cares about civil rights, religious freedom, or the rule of law should be alarmed.

Most recently, agitators stormed Cities Church in Saint Paul, near Minneapolis, during a worship service to protest U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids around the Twin Cities. Federal authorities, including the Department of Justice, are investigating the incident under civil rights laws that protect religious exercise at places of worship. Several people, including journalists present, have been arrested or charged in connection with the disruption.

You don’t need to agree with the worshippers in Minnesota or California to defend their rights. Civil liberties mean nothing if they apply only to causes we like.

This wasn’t an isolated incident. Peaceful worshippers have faced unlawful harassment before.

Last year, in March and September, Christian and Jewish worshippers in Southern California gathered peacefully to pray, sing, and express deeply held religious beliefs about Israel and the Jewish people. They came to worship. A coordinated campaign of intimidation met them instead: blocked entrances, screaming mobs, bullhorns blaring sirens, graphic signs aimed at children, physical assaults, and targeted harassment designed to make worship impossible.

First Liberty Institute filed a detailed federal complaint describing how the disruptors planned and coordinated these attacks and then celebrated them afterward. They registered for church events under fake names, infiltrated the Mission Church, screamed accusations of “genocide” and “Nazism” at Jewish and Christian worshippers, and resisted removal. Outside, others blocked exits and forced families — including children and seniors — to run a narrow gauntlet just to reach their cars.

At another interfaith service, agitators surrounded vehicles, jumped on worshippers’ hoods, laid dolls in driveways while calling Jewish guests “baby-killers,” and blared sirens for hours to drown out prayer and preaching.

That conduct is flatly illegal. It is also a transparent attempt to cloak intimidation in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not authorize people to physically interfere with worship, intimidate attendees, or use force and coercion to silence beliefs they despise. Congress recognized that principle when it passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) made sure the law would protect religious exercise at places of worship from exactly this kind of obstruction. When mobs block entrances, assault worshippers, or deliberately prevent services from being heard, they break the law.

RELATED: When worship is interrupted, neutrality is no longer an option

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

These incidents also reveal something darker: the targets and the motive.

The worshippers were Christians and Jews united by shared religious convictions about Israel. For Jewish attendees, support for Israel is not a political slogan; it is woven into faith, daily prayer, and identity. For Christian congregations, support for the Jewish people flows from sincerely held theological beliefs. Targeting those beliefs through harassment and violence is religious discrimination.

History shows where this road can lead. When officials tolerate intimidation against one disfavored group, it spreads. Our complaint documents a surge in anti-Semitic attacks nationwide since Oct. 7, 2023, along with a widening hostility toward anyone who publicly stands in solidarity with Jews. Persecution works the same way every time: isolate the target, then punish anyone who refuses to abandon the target.

The aftermath should chill every American. The complaint alleges that organizers vowed to continue, posted videos on public Code Pink channels boasting about their actions, and shared images of worshippers online to expose them to further harassment. Churches canceled events. Interfaith groups struggled to find safe venues. Ordinary people began to fear worship in their own communities.

The Free Exercise Clause means little if mobs can intimidate Americans into silence inside their own sanctuaries.

RELATED: A protest doesn’t become lawful because Don Lemon livestreams it

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

On Monday, victims of this harassment will testify before President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. The commission plans to issue a detailed plan to protect religious liberty in coordination with the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

You don’t need to agree with the worshippers in Minnesota or California to defend their rights. Civil liberties mean nothing if they apply only to causes we like. The moment we excuse intimidation because we sympathize with a protest’s message, we abandon equal freedom under the law.

Courts now have an opportunity — and an obligation — to draw a firm line. Peaceful protest belongs at a respectful distance, not inside sanctuaries. Reasonable debate belongs in the public square, not enforced through threats, coercion, and attempts at injury. If mobs get to decide who may worship freely, no one is safe.

​Opinion & analysis, First amendment, Freedom of religion, Free exercise, Religion, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press, Don lemon, Face act, Minnesota, Cities church protest, California, Interfaith, Worship, Law and order, Anti-ice protests, Minneapolis, St. paul minnesota, Department of justice, Journalists, Rule of law, Persecution, Christianity, Christians, Jews, Donald trump, Religious liberty commission