On her SiriusXM program Friday, Megyn Kelly predicted that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts could be on “the thinnest of possible ice” depending on how he rules in the Trump administration’s deportation case.
The Department of Justice, under President Donald Trump, asked the Supreme Court on Friday to overturn a lower court order that blocked the deportation of migrant gang members living in the U.S. On The Megyn Kelly Show, Kelly singled out Roberts as the conservative-leaning justice most likely to side against the administration’s request.
“John Roberts above all knows if he hands down a ruling telling the commander-in-chief that the nine men and women in black robes have the final say over what is perceived as a military threat unleashed on us by a foreign government, he’s on the thinnest of possible ice,” Kelly said. “He’s so obsessed with the court. I just can’t see him wanting to do it.”
On Wednesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg’s temporary block on deportations after President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua on March 15. Leading up to the panel’s review, Boasberg and the Justice Department exchanged arguments, with the judge requesting detailed information about the migrants targeted for removal. Responding to Kelly, political analyst Mark Halperin acknowledged that Chief Justice Roberts has at times ruled against Republican presidents, but said he believes the Supreme Court’s decision in this case is likely to favor Trump.
“Well, he [Roberts] is an interesting figure because he does vote sometimes against Republican presidents, including this one,” Halperin said. “He does care about the integrity of the court, the reputation of the court … I think that they’re going to rule some against the president in some form, and there are going to be some that are result-oriented. They don’t all rule on the merits, sad to say.”
“I think in this case and in the ones that are comparable, as you suggested, as has been mentioned, deference to the commander-in-chief on this stuff is something where there’s clearly popular will. You can find that. You don’t need to look outside the walls of the Constitution to find that,” Halperin added. In her request to the Supreme Court, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote that the case “presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security related operations in this country,” adding that the Constitution’s “clear answer” is that the president has the power on the issue.
“They’ll probably vote with the president on this one. But Roberts has got to expedite these things,” Halperin said. “It doesn’t make any sense for America to not expedite them. These should be on the fastest of tracks. They should be on a track like Bush v. Gore, not treated at all like normal cases, because it’s a campaign promise and it’s happening now.”
