Levin warns of judicial supremacy, says country is ‘overrun’ by federal courts ‘interfering in immigration’

(Video screenshot)

Late last year then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced a new policy designed to stop illegal aliens from gaming the system by using America’s lax asylum laws to disappear into the heartland and out of the reach of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates. Instead, they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are in Mexico,” she said in a statement at the time.

On Monday a federal judge blocked this policy, thus handing the Trump administration yet another defeat. The administration’s efforts to repeal the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and deny asylum to seekers who cross into the U.S. illegally have all faced a similar fate.

And last week a federal judge in Washington issued a ruling in which she essentially “said it’s up to the U.S. government to prove why [detained illegal aliens] shouldn’t be released.”

Speaking later Monday evening about the latest ruling, renowned conservative political commentator and former Reagan administration official Mark Levin argued that the country isn’t being overrun with illegal aliens because of bad policy-making but rather because of the courts.

“You want to know why this country is being overrun?” he said. “Because of the federal courts interfering in immigration. They never did that with Obama. … When Arizona said, ‘You know what, we’re going to enforce federal immigration laws, whether Obama does it or not,’ the Supreme Court 5-4, with Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion, said, ‘No, you’re not. The president gets to decide.'”

“So the new president decided, and now these courts say, ‘Actually, the president doesn’t get to decide. We get to decide.’ Every step of the way he’s fought by the courts!


He wasn’t wrong. Every single time that President Donald Trump has enacted a policy to curb illegal immigration or halt the growing border crisis, he’s been thwarted by “liberal activist judges” such as San Francisco Judge Richard Seeborg, the Obama appointee responsible for the latest ruling.

“A liberal activist judge in San Francisco ruled the United States and Mexico can’t work together to address asylum issues at the border,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders angrily remarked on Twitter Monday evening after Seeborg’s ruling was announced.

“It’s sad that Mexico is now doing more to secure our border than Democrats – President Trump will do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe.

Though how far the president’s willing to go to protect the American people remains unclear, CNN claims that, during a visit late last week to the southern U.S. border in California, Trump told U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to ignore any current and future judicial rulings.

“Behind the scenes, two sources told CNN, the President told border agents to not let migrants in. Tell them we don’t have the capacity, he said. If judges give you trouble, say, ‘Sorry, judge, I can’t do it. We don’t have the room,'” the far-left news outlet reported Tuesday.

Given CNN’s record, it’s doubtful that this ever actually happened. That being said, some conservative commentators have suggested that Trump should indeed defy judicial orders.

“The next time an Obama-nominated resistance-type district court judge reaches an absurd legal conclusion and attempts to issue a (completely lawless) nationwide injunction against a prized Trump administration priority, the president should effectively tell that judge to go take a hike,” political commentator Josh Hammer opined back in January.


Others say Trump should simply appeal the rulings and wait for the Supreme Court to issue its own decision. The only problem with this strategy is it requires waiting for months, if not years.

Take the president’s travel ban. Though he signed it into law in January of 2017, it wasn’t until June of 2018 that the Supreme Court finally upheld it, thus allowing the ban to go into effect.

Nevertheless, if Trump were to defy judicial orders, it could create legal jeopardy for him. It might also negatively impact his polling numbers going into the 2020 election.

This is perhaps why some seem to prefer that the president pursue the legal route:



Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles