Human Events Daily host Jack Posobiec spoke with Article III Project Senior Counsel Will Chamberlain about the invasion at the southern border, the constitutional implications of recent court decisions, and what happens when the judiciary steps into the role of commander-in-chief, as was recently seen with the Trump administration and the southern border.

Posobiec opened the conversation by referencing Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution, which states that the federal government must protect each state from invasion. He noted that while the Constitution doesn't define exactly when an "invasion" begins, President Donald Trump formally declared an invasion under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) on Inauguration Day. Trump also designated the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization and invoked the Alien Enemies Act to authorize deportations. But recent court decisions have thrown those actions into question.

“There's two different court cases that are relevant here,” Chamberlain said. “There’s what the Supreme Court did, and there's what this district court in Colorado.”

Chamberlain laid out how the Colorado district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking deportations of Tren de Aragua members, claiming that President Trump’s declaration of an invasion was incorrect. The court issued an order "essentially saying that because there was no invasion, President Trump was wrong to declare what was happening at the southern border predatory incursion, and therefore his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was invalid,” Chamberlain said.

But that, he explained, is not the judiciary’s decision to make.

“The district court doesn’t get to second-guess a president’s determination that there has been an invasion or a predatory incursion into the United States,” he said. “The district court judge doesn’t have an intelligence agency. They do not have an army. They do not have military intelligence. They have four law clerks. That is not sufficient to put them in a position to have any reasonable way to determine that.”

According to Chamberlain, the only proper role of a district court in this context is to assess whether the president has legally invoked the necessary authority. “If the president says there is an incursion," or "there is an invasion," the court is supposed to defer to that. “Once those invocations are made, that should be the end of it.”

He added that the Colorado judge’s ruling will likely be overturned. “The idea that a district judge would get to say, ‘Well, I don’t think the facts on the ground actually meet the general understanding of what constitutes a predatory incursion.' They don't get to do that. That's not their role. That’s way over the line into Article II territory.”

As for the Supreme Court, Chamberlain noted the justices took an unusual step by issuing an administrative stay that blocked deportations before any ruling had been issued by either the district court or the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“That’s wild,” Chamberlain said. “Justice Alito issued a scathing dissent and called them out on it.”

“This is not a call that belongs to four clerks and a district judge. It’s a call that belongs to the commander-in-chief.”

Watch the full episode below: