Fox News Host Greg Gutfeld Criticizes Chief Justice John Roberts Over Trump's Response to Court Ruling

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld has publicly criticized U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts following Roberts’ rare criticism of President Donald Trump. This dispute stems from the president’s call to impeach a federal judge, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ruled against the Trump administration in a recent immigration case.

Gutfeld, a strong supporter of Trump, blasted Roberts’ statement on Tuesday, accusing the Chief Justice of overstepping his role by intervening in the ongoing political debate regarding the president’s actions and judicial decisions.

Roberts issued his statement on Tuesday, after Trump expressed his intention to impeach Judge Boasberg, who ruled against the administration’s deportation efforts involving Venezuelan migrants. The president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, claiming authority to deport suspected members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador.

This move was challenged by Judge Boasberg, who ordered the deportation flights to be turned around, a ruling that Trump’s administration has pushed back on, arguing that the flights were already out of U.S. territory and beyond the judge’s jurisdiction.

In response to the controversy, Roberts issued a rare public statement on judicial matters, emphasizing that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” He pointed out that the “normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

This is the Chief Justice’s way of reinforcing the principle of judicial independence and highlighting the constitutional mechanisms available for challenging court decisions, namely through the appellate process rather than impeachment.

While Roberts’ statement was a defense of the judiciary and its independence, it drew sharp criticism from Gutfeld, who is known for his vocal support of Trump. On the Tuesday edition of The Five on Fox News, Gutfeld took issue with Roberts’ decision to wade into a political dispute between Trump and the judiciary.

“When there are rapists and murderers invading our country, maybe a guy in a robe in D.C. can follow all the protocols, but Trump is the effing president of the United States who protects 300 million plus people,” Gutfeld said. “He is a leader who does not have the luxury of opening up his little books to read.”

Gutfeld’s comments were a direct pushback against Roberts’ defense of judicial procedures, suggesting that Trump’s position as the leader of the country required him to act outside the normal constraints of the judicial system. The Fox News host emphasized that Trump’s duty was to protect the American people, even if it meant challenging the judicial system.

“This is something that a president has to do,” Gutfeld continued, implying that the president’s actions, while controversial, were necessary for the country’s safety.

The tone of Gutfeld’s remarks escalated as he told Roberts to “shut the F up.” His harsh criticism of the Chief Justice reflected the broader frustration that many Trump supporters feel regarding the perceived resistance from the judicial system to Trump’s policies.

Gutfeld also acknowledged his own initial skepticism about Trump’s candidacy in 2016 but expressed regret for doubting the president’s actions. “It blows my mind how wrong I was in 2016, or 2015, when Trump came down the escalator and we were … I was, ‘I can’t believe he said these things.’ Everything he said was right,” Gutfeld said.

He specifically referenced Trump’s comments about immigration, including his notorious statement during his 2016 campaign announcement about “rapists and murderers” entering the U.S. from Mexico. Gutfeld noted that Trump’s words were proven to be accurate, as many of the individuals coming into the country were indeed involved in criminal activity.

“They’re sending bad people. What did he say? They’re sending killers and rapists. Do you remember this? Some of them were good people. And now he’s sending them back,” Gutfeld argued.

The Trump administration has defended its actions regarding the deportation flights, arguing that it has the legal authority to remove migrants associated with the Tren de Aragua gang. According to the administration, these deportations are in line with the Alien Enemies Act, which grants the president broad powers to remove individuals from the country if they are deemed a threat to national security.

The ruling by Judge Boasberg, however, created a roadblock, with the judge ordering the flights to be reversed and questioning the legal basis for the deportations.

The administration’s argument that the flights had already left U.S. territory when the judge issued his order has sparked further debate. Trump’s legal team has suggested that Judge Boasberg’s order should not apply in this case, as the deportations were already underway when the ruling came down.

This legal dispute is part of a broader struggle between the executive branch and the judiciary, with Trump’s administration accusing some judges of overstepping their authority and undermining the president’s constitutional powers.

In an interview with Fox News’s Laura Ingraham, Trump responded to questions about his stance on defying court orders. Trump insisted that he had never defied a court order in the past, but when pressed by Ingraham about whether he would defy a court order in the future, he affirmed that he could not do so.

However, he also reiterated his belief that there are “bad judges” in the system who should not be allowed to rule on certain matters, particularly those related to national security.

Trump’s remarks about defying court orders have raised concerns among his critics, who argue that such comments undermine the integrity of the judicial system and set a dangerous precedent for the future. Critics worry that Trump’s rhetoric could embolden future presidents to challenge court rulings and disregard the constitutional checks and balances that are integral to the functioning of U.S. democracy.

Despite the controversy surrounding the deportation flights and Trump’s response to the court ruling, the legal battle is far from over. The administration is likely to continue pushing back against judicial rulings that it perceives as obstacles to its policies, while the judiciary will likely continue to assert its role as a check on executive power.

The ongoing clash between Trump and the judiciary highlights the broader tensions in American politics regarding the role of the courts and the limits of executive power. As Trump continues to challenge judicial rulings, the future of the relationship between the executive and judicial branches remains uncertain, with each side asserting its authority in the face of political and legal battles.

In the coming weeks, the situation surrounding the deportation flights and the judicial decisions may continue to evolve, with potential implications for the broader political landscape. As the courts continue to review Trump’s actions, the administration’s approach to judicial authority will likely continue to be a point of contention in the ongoing debate over the balance of power between the branches of government.