Since January 20, 2025, the job of prosecuting crime in Kaufman County has grown measurably easier—not because crime magically disappeared, but because it’s steadily declining. That’s not a coincidence. It’s the result of focused, collaborative work between our local law enforcement agencies, the Texas Anti-Gang Initiative, and federal partners who are finally taking violent crime seriously.
Since January 20, 2025, the job of prosecuting crime in Kaufman County has grown measurably easier—not because crime magically disappeared, but because it’s steadily declining. That’s not a coincidence. It’s the result of focused, collaborative work between our local law enforcement agencies, the Texas Anti-Gang Initiative, and federal partners who are finally taking violent crime seriously.
This progress—real, measurable, and hard-won—did not begin in a vacuum. Our county is part of the Northern District of Texas, and our office works hand-in-hand with federal authorities to combat the worst kinds of criminal threats: gun violence, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and organized crime. That collaboration has made a difference.
Which is why I’m concerned—not just as a prosecutor, but as a Texan—that one federal judge in Washington, D.C. could throw a wrench into all of it.
Judge James Boasberg’s recent ruling seeks to limit the tools made available by President Trump and General Bondi through executive action aimed at dismantling violent transnational gangs like Tren de Aragua. These tools have empowered prosecutors and law enforcement alike. But this decision, issued from a bench nearly 1,300 miles away, threatens to undercut that effort—not just in D.C., but in communities like Kaufman County.
And here’s the deeper issue: jurisdiction. Before making any ruling, a judge must ask one fundamental question—do I have the authority to decide this case? As a former judge myself, I know that skipping this step undermines the rule of law. Yet Judge Boasberg openly sidestepped this very question, focusing instead on theoretical due process claims of violent criminals while dismissing what he called the “thorny issue of jurisdiction.” Since then, copycat rulings have emerged from courts in Boston and San Francisco—jurisdictions far removed from the real frontlines of this fight.
The Constitution gives the President—not federal judges—the power to protect our nation’s safety. Executive orders targeting criminal enterprises are both lawful and necessary. This isn’t just my view; it’s the view of constitutional scholars, law enforcement leaders, and everyday Americans who see the real-world impact of crime prevention.
In Texas, our judges are accountable. We stand for election. We answer to our communities. But federal judges enjoy lifetime appointments and immunity from public consequences. In this legal battle, only one actor is directly accountable to the people—and that’s the President of the United States. The people have spoken, and their mandate is clear: protect our communities, dismantle criminal networks, and restore public safety.
The progress we’ve made in Kaufman County should not be jeopardized by a ruling from a courtroom that has never faced the threats we confront daily. Let us continue our work—uninterrupted and undeterred.
Erleigh N. Wiley
Criminal District Attorney
Kaufman County, Texas
