In a late-night Easter weekend decision, the Supreme Court issued a surprise injunction against the Biden administration’s planned deportations of a group of illegal immigrants in Texas—sparking intense backlash from conservative legal scholars and Trump allies who say the court overstepped its authority and ignored procedural norms.
Joining Chicago’s Morning Answer, Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Article III Project, sharply criticized the court’s actions, calling the ruling “unbelievably sloppy” and “lawless,” and likened the court’s behavior to political activism cloaked in judicial robes.
The Supreme Court’s move came before a district court had even issued a ruling in the case. Chamberlain noted that the ACLU bypassed the lower courts by arguing a “constructive denial” due to judicial delay, prompting the Fifth Circuit to push back. Undeterred, the ACLU went directly to the Supreme Court, which granted the injunction without lower court input—an unprecedented step in the eyes of many legal observers.
“This violates everything we know about procedure and separation of powers,” said Chamberlain. “It undermines Marbury v. Madison and centuries of precedent. Courts don’t get to enjoin the President without a ruling from a lower court.”
Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority’s decision, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Both questioned the legal basis and procedural integrity of the court’s intervention. Chamberlain agreed, saying Alito’s concerns were “obvious and correct.”
Trump’s Immigration Policy Under Fire—Again
The case revolves around a key pillar of Donald Trump’s re-election campaign: mass deportations. The former president has promised the largest deportation effort in U.S. history, which helped propel him to a decisive victory in November.
“This was not a surprise,” Chamberlain said. “Trump ran on this. He won big. The courts and the left need to prepare for that reality, not try to stop it through procedural games.”
Chamberlain emphasized that deportation is a civil process, not a criminal one, and does not require the same level of due process. In many cases, he said, it simply means verifying a lack of legal status and moving quickly to remove an individual from the country.
The Abrégo García Case
The controversy is playing out in parallel with the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrégo García, a Salvadoran man deported by the Trump administration who was later discovered to have a violent past and ties to MS-13. Despite a lengthy record in both the U.S. and El Salvador, Democrats have attempted to portray him as a victim of overreach.
Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) said during a recent hearing that García was “less criminal” than former President Trump. Chamberlain dismissed this claim as “absurd” and said the left is now trying to canonize an MS-13 gang member for political reasons.
When asked how the Trump administration should handle the García case, Chamberlain said the path forward is clear: initiate proceedings to lift García’s withholding of removal status and, if necessary, send a judge to the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador to expedite the process.
“García never had a legal right to reside in the U.S.,” he said. “He’s not coming back. Period.”
Immigration Infrastructure and Legal Bottlenecks
Chamberlain believes the greatest hurdle to Trump’s deportation plans is not legal—it’s logistical. The U.S. lacks enough immigration judges, staff, and infrastructure to efficiently process removals at the scale proposed.
“Due process in this context can mean something very simple—do you have papers? No? Get on the plane,” he explained. “But we need the manpower to do it.”
He also noted the irony in the left’s demands: “There’s no vetting on the way in, but now they want everyone vetted on the way out.”
Birthright Citizenship on the Docket
The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case on birthright citizenship, another major constitutional test for Trump’s immigration agenda. Chamberlain said the outcome is uncertain but could go either way.
He pointed to the precedent involving Native Americans, who were not automatically granted citizenship until Congress passed specific legislation, as evidence that birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants is not constitutionally guaranteed.
Concerns Over Justice Barrett
Chamberlain also addressed growing criticism of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s appointees, who has sided with liberal justices on several recent cases, including Murthy v. Missouri and now the immigration injunction.
“She seems more interested in appearing moderate than in sticking to the Constitution,” he said. “Her recent decisions show a disappointing trend.”
He acknowledged that political pressure, threats, and intimidation from the left might be influencing justices like Barrett. “The left has bullied this court. It’s having an effect.”
Outlook: Legal Resistance Meets Political Resolve
Despite the legal obstacles and political posturing, Chamberlain remains confident that Trump’s immigration strategy will ultimately prevail—if the right resources are put in place and the administration follows a clear legal path.
“These people don’t have a right to be here,” he said. “And no amount of rhetorical gymnastics is going to change that.”
As the legal drama continues to unfold, one thing is clear: immigration will remain a defining issue of Trump’s second term—and the courts will be at the center of the fight.