Chief Justice John Roberts Hands President Trump a Big Win!

Chief Justice John Roberts has made many questionable rulings and and sided with the Liberal Judges quite often over the past 10 years, but he just got one right, handing President Trump a big win.

An activist judge had given the Trump Administration a deadline of midnight tonight to return an illegal criminal who was deported to El Salvador….

But Roberts stepped in to pause the order, at least temporarily:

BREAKING: Chief Justice John Roberts pauses order for Trump administration to return man mistakenly deported to El Salvador prison – AP

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 7, 2025

Another loss for activist judges!

🚨 #BREAKING: TRUMP AND NOEM PREVAIL IN SUPREME COURT — will NOT have to return an alleged member of MS-13 from El Salvador back to the US tonight

Another loss for activist judges! 🔥

A federal judge had originally ordered the President to bring back this potentially violent… https://t.co/0Pd4Qr3on1 pic.twitter.com/L8BBxLtkWI

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) April 7, 2025

🚨 #BREAKING: TRUMP AND NOEM PREVAIL IN SUPREME COURT — will NOT have to return an alleged member of MS-13 from El Salvador back to the US tonight

Another loss for activist judges! 🔥

A federal judge had originally ordered the President to bring back this potentially violent gang member from his NATIVE country of El Salvador.

He is not a U.S. citizen, and as Karoline Leavitt says, activist U.S. judges have no jurisdiction over President Bukele’s El Salvador.

Here are more details, from the AP:

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed Monday to pause a midnight deadline for the Trump administration to return a Maryland man mistakenly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

The temporary order comes hours after a Justice Department emergency appeal to the Supreme Court arguing U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis overstepped her authority when she ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to the United States.

The administration has conceded that Abrego Garcia should not have been sent to El Salvador because an immigration judge found he likely would face persecution by local gangs.

ADVERTISEMENT

But he is no longer in U.S. custody and the government has no way to get him back, the administration argued.

Xinis gave the administration until just before midnight to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return.

“The district court’s injunction—which requires Abrego Garcia’s release from the custody of a foreign sovereign and return to the United States by midnight on Monday—is patently unlawful,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers, casting the order as one in “a deluge of unlawful injunctions” judges have issued to slow President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The Justice Department appeal was directed to Roberts because he handles appeals from Maryland.

The Trump administration is separately asking the Supreme Court to allow Trump to resume deportations of Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members to the same Salvadoran prison under an 18th century wartime law.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, denied the administration’s request for a stay. “There is no question that the government screwed up here,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in a brief opinion accompanying the unanimous denial.

So, what comes next?

And what is likely to happen when this heads to a vote from all 9 judges?

Background Context

President Trump has been aggressively pursuing a mass deportation agenda, prominently invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members, particularly those linked to the Tren de Araguagroup. This approach has sparked significant legal challenges.

On March 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking these deportations, arguing that the Act—historically used only during declared wars or invasions—did not apply to the current situation, as there was no formal war or invasion by a foreign nation. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this block on March 26 in a 2-1 decision, prompting the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The administration’s appeal, filed by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris on March 28, asked the Supreme Court to lift the lower court orders and allow deportations to resume under the 1798 law, asserting that judicial interference was undermining the president’s national security authority.

Chief Justice Roberts has been notably involved in this saga, issuing a rare public rebuke on March 18 against Trump’s call to impeach Judge Boasberg, emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial disagreement and that the appellate process should be followed.

---

Today’s Potential Ruling (April 7, 2025)

Assuming your question refers to a hypothetical or anticipated Supreme Court action today, no definitive ruling has been publicly documented as of 3:21 PM CDT on April 7, 2025, based on available information. However, the Supreme Court has been actively considering the administration’s emergency request.

If a ruling were issued today under Roberts’ leadership, it could take one of several forms:

• Granting the Administration’s Request:
  The Court could vacate the lower court TROs, allowing Trump to proceed with deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. This would affirm the president’s broad executive authority in national security and immigration matters, potentially citing precedents like Ludecke v. Watkins (1948), which upheld presidential discretion in designating enemy aliens.

• Denying the Request:
  The Court could uphold the D.C. Circuit’s decision, reinforcing due process concerns raised by Judge Patricia Millett and others that deportees must have a chance to challenge their designations as gang members. This would deal a significant blow to Trump’s deportation strategy.

• Interim Action:
  The Court might issue a procedural order (e.g., requesting further clarification from lower courts or additional briefs), delaying a final decision.

Given the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority—including three Trump appointees—analysts speculate a lean toward the administration, but Roberts’ history of moderating extreme executive overreach (e.g., his role in the 2024 immunity ruling) suggests he might seek a balanced outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT