More aggressive elements of President Trump’s immigration agenda were boycotted by federal district judges. These courts questioned the government's accelerated deportation of illegal Venezuelan immigrants, with little or no due process. But the more fundamental constitutional problem lies in the struggle against immigration. A federal judge who blocks deportation may interfere with the executive’s constitutional authority over diplomatic relations and national security. Meanwhile, if the White House’s argument for unilateral power is too far away, it jeopardizes the judiciary that has long provided the president with respect for national security management.

The president and the judiciary became masters due to the decision of two independent federal district judges last week. On May 1, Judge Fernando Rodriguez of Texas ruled that Trump could not claim power under the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, demanding that members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragya Gang (TDA) be removed to El Salvador. On May 6, Judge Charlotte Sweeney of Colorado agreed and prohibited the administration from further expelling Venezuela without a judge. Although there are only temporary orders, no federal court has rejected the president or Congress decision that the United States has suffered an attack or invasion.

Part of the responsibility for this executive judicial conflict also depends on the unprecedented use of the Alien Enemy Act by the Trump administration. The bill authorizes the president to detain and expel foreigners into "hostile countries or governments" that are trapped in the United States that "declare war" or suffer "invasion or predatory invasion." During the wars announced in 1812 and during the First and Second World Wars, the United States used the bill only.

FBI assessment found

But on March 15, President Trump sent TDA members to El Salvador under the bill. He announced that the gang is conducting invasion or predatory invasion through “irregular wars” such as “drug trafficking” and “massive illegal immigration”. Trump claims that the TDA is “closely integrated with the Venezuelan government and has indeed penetrated” to meet the bill’s demand for “hostile state or government” invasion. The White House expressed the extraordinary claim that a gang has risen to the level of a foreign government that is conducting an invasion or predatory invasion of the United States.

Regardless of the challenge that shows that this is a true fact, the district judge made a mistake that it was a problem that the court resolved. On some important issues, the Constitution reserves judgments only to the elected branches of the government. When Chief Justice John Marshall admitted in Marbury v. Madison that the case first declared the power of judicial review, “the president is invested by certain important political powers, and in his actions, he will use his discretion.” For his decision, “he is only responsible for his political nature and his conscience.” His decision cannot be challenged in court because “the subject is political.” These issues “respect the state, not the individual rights, and are entrusted to the administration, and the decision to implement is certain.”

Click here for more Fox News comments

As the Supreme Court described, the war completely raised such “political issues” that fell outside of judicial capacity. The Constitution granted the President the executive power and made him the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. Congress has the power to raise and fund the armed forces and declare war. The court has no authority to direct the elected branches to exercise these authorities.

Click here to get the Fox News app

The federal court never made a decision on the elected branch where war or invasion occurred. For example, in reward cases, the Supreme Court would not speculate for the second time that President Abraham Lincoln decided to enact a war to stop the division. The court declared that “it makes sense whether the president is responsible for the commander-in-chief when launching a military operation against the South.” The court could declare that decisions regarding force must be retained to the president to “entrust the political department of that power.” Following this precedent, federal judges rejected lawsuits seeking to pause the wars in South Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan or Iraq.

But in Texas and Colorado cases, federal judges overturned the judiciary’s respect for the war. They rejected President Trump's claim that Venezuela used TDA as a member of its military to invade the United States. The federal court of appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court must review these rulings as soon as possible. They must recognize that trial judges lack the ability to review sensitive information and judgements to make more terrifying national security decisions. The court has formal complaints, evidence and rules for deliberation in resolving cases or disputes. They lack the judgment on the probability and risks of managing the national security world.