President Donald Trump escalated his criticism of the Supreme Court over the weekend after it temporarily blocked his administration from using a wartime-era law to speed up migrant deportations. In a move that raised eyebrows across the political spectrum, Trump amplified a proposal suggesting that so-called “terrorists” be relocated near the homes of the justices who ruled against him.
The controversy began Saturday when Trump shared a social media post by former GOP staffer Mike Davis, a loyal Trump ally and possible contender for attorney general. In the post, Davis wrote, “The president should release these terrorists near the Chevy Chase Country Club, with daytime release.” Trump reposted the comment to his Truth Social account, signaling his endorsement of the idea.
Davis, known for his hardline views on immigration, went further, claiming that the Supreme Court “still has an illegal injunction on the President of the United States, preventing him from commanding military operations to expel these foreign terrorists.”
The Maryland country club mentioned in the post is reportedly frequented by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The comment prompted swift backlash, including a response from former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, who criticized the president’s decision to elevate such rhetoric.
The President re-posts a suggestion from an adviser that he release “terrorists” near the homes of Supreme Court justices who’ve merely ruled that the government can’t send people to a foreign gulag without due process pic.twitter.com/UsRKryOUWG
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) May 17, 2025
“The President re-posts a suggestion from an advisor that he release ‘terrorists’ near the homes of Supreme Court justices who’ve merely ruled that the government can’t send people to a foreign gulag without due process,” Favreau wrote online.
Davis responded affirmatively, replying “Yes” to Favreau’s post. He then elaborated on his stance, stating that migrants should instead be sent to “wealthy white liberal enclaves, like Chevy Chase and Martha’s Vineyard,” implying that only then would critics of the policy begin to care about legal protections.
Yes.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) May 17, 2025
We should send these “Maryland fathers” where they will feel safe and protected:
Wealthy white liberal enclaves, like Chevy Chase and Martha’s Vineyard.
Instead of working-class minority neighborhoods, like Aurora.
Then let’s see how much “due process” you liberals want. https://t.co/nnVVkeeWfE
The Supreme Court ruling that sparked the president’s outrage came Friday in a 7-2 decision. The justices upheld a temporary block on the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport migrants with minimal legal review. The court concluded that the government’s process giving individuals only 24 hours’ notice and limited information to defend themselves was unconstitutional. The justices wrote that the expedited approach “does not pass muster.”
Following the decision, Trump turned to Truth Social to vent his frustration. “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he wrote in all caps. He followed that post with a longer statement later in the evening, reiterating his dissatisfaction with the ruling.
Adding further scrutiny to the administration’s handling of deportations, the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia has gained attention. Garcia was deported to El Salvador despite an active court order blocking his removal. A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has demanded that the administration facilitate his return, though the Trump administration has yet to comply.
The White House has not commented on either the Supreme Court’s ruling or the president’s reposting of the suggestion to release migrants near the homes of justices. Legal experts and civil rights advocates have expressed concern over what they view as incendiary language from a sitting president targeting members of the judiciary.
As the legal battle continues, the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act a rarely invoked law dating back to the 18th century—remains a flashpoint in the broader debate over immigration and executive power. With the court’s temporary injunction in place, further review is expected in the coming months.
In the meantime, Trump’s rhetoric and actions are drawing renewed attention to the boundaries of presidential conduct and the checks placed on executive authority by the judiciary.
