Once again, a bench-warmer in a black robe thinks he runs the country.
This week, federal judge Jamal Whitehead ordered the Trump administration to immediately begin resettling over 12,000 migrants whose admission was paused due to executive decisions tied to national interest. Let’s pause here. A judge—not elected, not accountable to voters, and certainly not the Commander-in-Chief—thinks he can dictate immigration policy from the comfort of his climate-controlled courtroom.
This isn’t judicial review. This is judicial mutiny.
According to the Constitution (you know, the document federal judges pretend to uphold), Article II vests executive power in the president—not in the whims of D.C. or Seattle-based activist judges. Immigration, in particular, has long been understood to fall within the purview of the executive branch. Why? Because immigration isn't just a humanitarian question—it’s a national security issue. It’s about who enters, who stays, and who potentially harms American citizens. That is not a question for the courts to micromanage.
But here we are again.
Judge Whitehead’s ruling attempts to weaponize a previously negotiated travel schedule—before the pause in refugee admissions was announced—as a binding legal requirement on the executive branch. That’s like saying if a cruise line cancels your trip due to war breaking out at the port, they still have to take you anyway—just because you had a boarding pass. That’s not how executive discretion works. That’s not how any of this works.
But it’s not just Whitehead. Let’s talk about Judge James Boasberg, who’s been trying to outdo himself as the judiciary’s king of overreach. Earlier this year, Boasberg blocked deportations of alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang—yes, a gang—on the grounds of due process. His order temporarily stopped the Trump administration from removing Venezuelan nationals even though the law in question—the Alien Enemies Act—clearly gives the executive broad authority in times of national threat.
The Supreme Court initially vacated Boasberg’s order, affirming that such deportation challenges must be filed in the jurisdictions where detainees are held—not in Washington, D.C.—thereby undercutting his attempt to centralize judicial control. However, SCOTUS later issued an emergency order temporarily halting further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, reflecting ongoing scrutiny over the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.
Still, let’s be clear: the lawsuits may be stacking up, and the Court may feel pressure to weigh in more decisively—but precedent remains firmly on the side of executive authority. Over and over again, from Trump v. Hawaii to earlier decisions spanning decades, SCOTUS has upheld that the president—and the president alone—holds the unique and exclusive authority to determine national immigration policy and enforcement. And based on that long-standing precedent, I strongly believe that will continue to be the case.
So yes, Boasberg may delay. He may posture. But in the end, the Constitution still reigns.
Let’s remember: the precedent is clear. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Supreme Court upheld the president’s authority—explicitly granted by Congress—to suspend the entry of foreign nationals if their admission would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. Chief Justice Roberts himself affirmed that the president has “broad discretion” in immigration policy. Translation: the president—not a district judge—calls the shots on who gets in and who doesn’t.
Drop the mic.
This isn’t some dusty ruling from a forgotten era. It’s modern law. It’s binding precedent. And it obliterates the legal reasoning behind these latest rogue rulings. But apparently, when you’re part of the Obama-Biden judicial pipeline, you think your robes come with a scepter and crown.
Let’s also be honest about what’s really going on here. These judges are part of a broader, entrenched progressive effort to undermine immigration enforcement by any means necessary. Even with Trump back in the White House, the legal landmines planted during the Biden years are still going off in courtrooms across the country. And the ideological muscle memory of the activist legal class doesn’t die easily.
While President Trump and his Homeland Security team are trying to rebuild the wall, enforce the law, and prioritize American citizens, they’re still being hamstrung by leftover lawsuits, Obama-Biden-era judges, and activist legal groups desperate to keep the border open. These judicial interferences aren’t about justice—they’re about preserving progressive immigration policies through the back door.
Meanwhile, American families suffer. For every illegal migrant or refugee with insufficient vetting who is ushered in under these rogue rulings, there is a community that bears the brunt—be it through stressed public resources, increased crime, or cultural destabilization.
And yet, where is the media outcry? Where are the “defenders of democracy” now that judges are literally running immigration policy?
Nowhere.
They loved to scream about “tyranny” under Trump’s legal executive orders—many of which SCOTUS upheld. But now? When unelected judges are inventing policy from the bench? Silence. Crickets. Because their outrage was never about law—it was always about power.
Let’s be clear: the president has the constitutional mandate to secure the border, enforce immigration law, and protect the national interest. That means he has the legal authority to suspend, limit, or redirect immigration policies based on current threats, priorities, and capabilities.
That’s why Trump v. Hawaii was decided the way it was. That’s why the Alien Enemies Act exists. That’s why SCOTUS has repeatedly signaled it is not the job of district judges to conduct foreign policy from behind a gavel.
And that’s why this latest attempt by Judge Whitehead—like Boasberg before him—will end up where it belongs: overturned by the Supreme Court.
So what do we call it when judges try to override executive authority in matters of national security and immigration? We call it unconstitutional. We call it reckless. And we call it grounds for reversal.
Judicial activism like this doesn’t just blur the separation of powers—it bulldozes it. And if these judges aren’t careful, the public trust in their institution is going to collapse under the weight of their own arrogance.
SCOTUS needs to drop the hammer—again.
Until then, here’s a reminder to the judiciary: you may wear the robe, but you don’t hold the reins.
That job belongs to the president. And the Constitution still says so.
Kevin McCullough is a nationally syndicated talk show host and columnist. He hosts “That KEVIN Show” on Salem News Channel and weekends on radio nationwide. Follow him @KMCRadio.