REP. JACOBS, AT TOWN HALL, SEES 'RED LINE' FOR GOP IF TRUMP DEFIES COURTS

March 2025 Articles

By Tesa Balc, Times of San Diego, a member of the San Diego Online News Association

Photo: Rep. Sara Jacobs in her congressional office. (File photo courtesy of Jacobs’ office via Facebook)

March 24, 2025 (Jacumba) - A San Diego Democrat said Saturday that Republicans have told her they will not back President Donald Trump if he defies court orders.

The remarks, by Rep. Sara Jacobs, were part of a virtual town hall she hosted Saturday in which she answered pre-submitted questions and addressed comments and queries from an audience that at times reached a high of 1,200 viewers.

While providing legislative updates and answering constituents’ questions, Jacobs acknowledged that a majority of her initial updates were “bleak” for those opposed to Trump’s policies and proposals.

But then she pointed to recent decisions in which judges ruled against Trump – including a temporary restraining order to block the administration from deporting hundreds of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act – as proof of progress.

“Yes, we know Trump ignored the court order, but I think it’s important that the court order happened and now we’re pushing Republicans to stand up and respect the courts because they have privately told me that their red line is Trump not abiding by a court order,” Jacobs said.

Other rulings have blocked Trump’s ban on transgender service members and, most recently, barred the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Social Security records.

Jacobs represents California’s 51st Congressional district, which includes central and eastern San Diego. She has been in town this past week, taking multiple meetings with residents and stakeholders, including at Rady Children’s Hospital where she discussed potential cuts to Medicaid funding.

She began the town hall Saturday by outlining her frustration with the federal spending bill that was approved by Congress last week, as she said the vote felt like a missed opportunity to push back against Trump’s administration.

“I voted against this bill because I am very concerned about some of what was in there, including cuts to veterans care, cuts to rent subsidies, cuts to Army Corps of Engineers construction projects,” Jacobs said.

“And I am very disappointed that some Senate Democrats, not [California’s] – our two Senators did the right thing – but some Senate Democrats gave our leverage away for free and helped Republicans to pass this continuing resolution.”

Before answering questions, Jacobs shared her opposition to the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act; she is a co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the 1798 law. The congresswoman also said that she joined a recent bipartisan oversight delegation on a trip to Guantanamo Bay to see the conditions in which migrants were being held.

“After our oversight visit, they actually moved all the immigrants who were there back to the continental United States, I think, because even the Republicans realized there was no real reason for the cost and the cruelty,” she said.

Questions for Jacobs ranged from DOGE and challenges to its leader, billionaire Elon Musk, to complaints about Sen. Chuck Schumer – a subject of criticism for his role in passage of the spending bill – and other Democrats they accused of not opposing Trump more actively.

Some of the constituents who took part in the town hall feared for democracy itself. Jacobs tried to reassure them.

“What we’ve seen from other countries is that if we can put together a broad-based pro-democracy movement, we actually have a pretty good chance of getting a better democracy on the other side,” she said.

She also told constituents they could support congressional efforts to halt Musk’s actions by filing a Freedom of Information Act request for a report on the information that DOGE has accessed about them personally. Doing so, Jacobs said, “is one way that you can really help us do our constitutional oversight job.”

“Send that to us,” she urged. “That is really helpful to us in being able to understand exactly what DOGE has accessed and what they continue to access.”

She added that her office will post information on her website about how to file FOIA requests.

Jacobs plans another town hall, this one in person, on April 22 in El Cajon.

Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.

Comments

The people have spoken.

It is getting hard to keep up with all the judicial rulings trying to thwart Trump and Musk. There are now over 100 such cases. It just further demonstrates how desperate the left is to continue the graft and woke ideology, and how there has to be a major change in how the judicial system really works. We have now lost all confidence in the rule of law and the judiciary. The voters spoke loudly on November 5, and the judiciary is not now the other arm of Congress with the power to determine how agencies and departments under the executive branch are operated. This activist judiciary needs to be ended. The more the Dems and left continue to try to stop Trump and Musk, the more they lose votes. Voters were very clear: the violent illegal aliens need to be arrested and sent away. The more the Dems try to stop this, the more the voters are going to revolt against them in 2026. The case where the DC judge told Trump to turn the planes around and return the murderers and criminals is very likely to become a historic case similar to Marbury vs Madison. It goes to the heart of: can a single unelected judge in one jurisdiction tell the executive branch how to conduct national security and foreign policy or basic law enforcement policy to keep citizens safe, which is the executive branch responsibility under the Constitution? Similarly, it is not the role of the judiciary to determine how an agency like USAID is run or staffed. Congress did not specifically pass legislation that orders or allows the absurd fraud and waste at USAID. After the Alito dissent in the recent case related to USAID related to contracts that had already been performed, I believe we may see a historic decision that says the judicial branch cannot make decisions as to how the executive branch carries out its constitutional roles but can only rule on the specific written constitutional rights of the parties. Operating decisions like staffing and issuing grants is not a constitutional issue for the courts, but is an executive branch function derived from Congress passing the budget or other specific laws. Illegal aliens, who, by definition, broke the law by coming here, do not have a right to stay and do not have a right to commit crimes. It is the clear constitutional obligation of the President to protect the citizens and the border. Under that 1789 law, the President has the right to deport those who pose a real threat. This judge, an Obama appointee, of course, is making a totally political decision and is ignoring the strict wording of the law. The same goes for the Columbia student and the Brown professor. They do not have any right to be here if they are judged by the executive branch alone, doing its duty to protect the citizens, to expel those perceived to pose a threat to domestic tranquility and safety. How the judge could think that forcing the return of savages makes any sense is impossible to understand. The Dems and ACLU are trying to get the court to force these despicable animals to be left alone to stay here, which will simply make voters far more anti-DNC. So, to that end, this case will be a major political event. There is also the issue of whether a single district judge can make rules for the entire nation and for parties not involved in the case at bar. Both Biden and Obama claimed they do not. As Newt has eloquently opined, the judiciary is out of control now and is trying to take executive authority to itself, which it cannot do. It will require SCOTUS to opine on this issue and to rule to get judges back to their role and not to try to play politics and assume the role of the executive branch. This year will see major historic rulings by SCOTUS on these issues. This is Marbury revisited and will be the most important case SCOTUS decides in over a century. Just as in Marbury, it will set forth the parameters of each branch of government authority. Boasberg vs. Trump, or however they name it, will be the case you need to follow.