The principle of separation of powers in the United States faces a major challenge.

On the afternoon of Saturday, March 15th, after 5 p.m., two planes departed from Harlingen Airport in Texas, U.S., flying through Honduras to El Salvador. The two planes carried a total of 261 passengers, including illegal immigrants who were members of the Venezuelan gang “Arugula Train” and the Salvadoran gang MS-13.

At the time of takeoff, an emergency hearing regarding a request for judicial intervention was underway.

At 6:45 p.m., Judge Bozberg of the DC Federal District verbally ordered the government to “immediately comply” with halting deportations and demanded that any plane carrying immigrants, whether about to take off or already in the air, return to the United States.

However, by this time, both planes had already flown over the Yucatan Peninsula, far beyond the jurisdiction of the United States.

At 7:26 p.m., a written restraining order was issued by the judge.

Ten minutes later, the first plane landed in Honduras.

This event has escalated the judicial confrontation between President Trump and regional judges since taking office.

In this case, the judge challenges the foundation of the Trump administration’s expulsion of gang members through the activation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The legality of invoking this law, which has only been used three times since its enactment in 1812 during wars, raises serious questions and violates provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding repatriation to the home country.

After an emergency appeal by the government, the DC Appeals Court ruled 2:1 to uphold the temporary injunction issued by the lower court. The case is still ongoing.

President Trump’s administration had prepared for the deportation prior to announcing the activation of the Alien Enemies Act. While the Federal District Court held an emergency hearing, it failed to prevent the planes from leaving U.S. airspace.

President Trump’s administration took this particular action because many of his previous executive orders had been blocked by federal judges.

These executive orders include but are not limited to: ending birthright citizenship, firing federal employees, forming government efficiency departments, terminating government DEI projects, ending federal support for gender confirmation care, forbidding transgender individuals from joining the military, delaying asylum applications, reversing offshore drilling bans, freezing foreign aid, suspending refugee programs, dissolving the Department of Education and shutting down Voice of America.

Some of these executive orders were partially blocked or still pending. During Trump’s first term, approximately 60 executive orders were blocked by regional judges. In contrast, during Biden’s term, only 14 executive orders have been blocked, with most occurring in Texas. In February alone, about 15 of President Trump’s executive orders were blocked by federal judges. Except for the case of deporting gang members, the Trump administration has generally complied with injunctions in other cases.

The widespread judicial actions against U.S. presidential executive powers have raised significant doubts about the delineation of boundaries within the U.S. system of checks and balances. The large-scale judicial injunctions against presidential executive measures undermine the authority and functioning of the executive branch, posing challenges to the effective operation of the U.S. government.

While it is not uncommon for U.S. presidential executive orders to be blocked, the frequency and extent of direct court intervention witnessed recently is unprecedented in American history.

The first controversy revolves around the relationship between the executive and judicial branches. In the case of deporting gang immigrants, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt claimed that judges have no authority to interfere with the president’s diplomatic and national security powers. Judicial oversight of the executive branch stems from the principle of separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution, specifically established by the judicial review principle in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case. The federal courts have the authority to review administrative actions to ensure their alignment with the Constitution, and regional judges, as part of the federal judiciary, can determine if executive orders exceed their authority.

Moreover, the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 allows courts to review administrative actions and if found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” they can annul or prevent them.

Critics of judges abusing power argue that the president is the highest head of the federal government, and his signed executive orders apply nationwide. While regional judges are local, their injunctions can also affect the entire country, which they view as unfair. They also argue that with 600 federal district judges in the U.S., each having the power to temporarily halt the president’s orders, the justice system could potentially paralyze the president’s powers in extreme situations. Furthermore, the U.S. president is elected by the people and derives power from voter authorization, whereas the 600 unelected federal district judges can easily obstruct the president’s exercise of power without electoral mandate, raising questions about who truly guides U.S. domestic and foreign policies.

Additionally, judges are also part of society with their viewpoints and stances, leading to a lack of uniform legal standards. While the Supreme Court can vote to make final decisions, regional judges may not even require consultation.

Although constraints on U.S. presidential executive orders by federal district judges have existed throughout American history, they have not sparked severe crises.

This year, due to the frequent judicial challenges faced by President Trump from the beginning of his second term, discussions and viewpoints within the U.S. legal and political spheres regarding restricting federal district court judges’ intervention in presidential executive orders have intensified.

Regarding the nationwide injunction against deporting gang immigrants, conservative individuals and some scholars, including former Attorney General William Barr, argue that such injunctions allow a single judge to “set national policy,” which is inconsistent with the Constitution’s design. However, some liberal thinkers believe that nationwide injunctions are necessary tools to protect constitutional rights and legal consistency, especially when executive orders could cause wide-ranging and irreversible harm, making judicial review particularly crucial.

The conflicting dynamics between judicial review and administrative measures reflect deep political divisions and societal cleavages in American society.

Some politicians and legal scholars suggest limiting the power of regional courts through legislation or judicial rules, proposing that injunctions should be limited to the jurisdiction of the judge rather than applying nationwide. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thomas previously criticized nationwide injunctions in 2018, deeming them “lacking historical basis and disrupting judicial structure.” He argued that U.S. regional courts must demonstrate the presence of a “national emergency” or “significant public interest” before issuing nationwide injunctions against executive actions.

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court’s attitude towards nationwide injunctions has become less supportive. In 2018, in the case of Trump v. Hawaii involving the travel ban, the Supreme Court supported the executive branch, upholding the authority of the U.S. president in areas such as immigration and national security. If President Trump’s deportation order cases are appealed to the Supreme Court this year, the justices could further clarify the limits of injunctions.

On the other hand, liberals and some legal experts oppose limiting the power of regional courts, arguing that it is a critical defense against executive overreach. Weakening the power of judges could lead to excessive concentration of presidential authority, undermining the principle of separation of powers.

The executive orders issued during President Trump’s second term and the frequent injunctions by regional court judges often involve fundamental changes to presidential executive powers and government actions, sharpening the contradictions in judicial oversight of executive authority. While it may not have reached a constitutional crisis yet, it has indeed challenged the principle of separation of powers in the United States.

Looking positively, such challenges may provide an opportunity for the U.S. to further clarify the boundaries between judicial and executive powers. While the core of modern democratic systems resides in Europe, the operation of such a system hinges on the cooperation and compromise of various social strata and ideological currents.

When gentlemen disagree, they should shoot arrows at each other.

If turned into a struggle of petty villains striving for supremacy with a life or death outcome for each issue, the foundational institutional basis of Western modern civilization would be jeopardized.