Conservatives have long complained about so-called activist judges, meaning those who they think are stretching the meaning of existing laws and historical precedent in order to achieve the judge’s desired political or social ends. President Donald Trump and his administration have ratcheted up these accusations against federal judges who have stood in the way of the implementation of some of his policies. It should be remembered that he made similar accusations against the state and federal judges who presided over the more than 60 failed lawsuits in which he alleged the 2016 election was stolen from him. So, let’s examine the most recent similar claims coming from the administration.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently called U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg a “Democrat activist” because he ruled that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 could not be employed to deport Venezuelans, alleged to be part of a criminal gang, without the normal due process procedures. Boasberg was appointed to the D.C. Superior Court by President George W. Bush and later to the federal court by President Barack Obama. That Enemies Act permits the president to deport aliens, “whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government.”

Since the law was enacted, it has been executed three times — against British nationals during the War of 1812, against Germans in World War I and against supposed “nationals” of the various Axis powers in World War II. The law is not uncontroversial; its most outrageous use was to justify the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But the law remains on the books and, accordingly, President Trump is allowed to use it if he is faithful to the requirements of the law. Trump’s use of it in this case, however, violates both the clear language of the law and the conditions under which it has always been utilized.

Last I checked, we are not at war with Venezuela, either declared or undeclared. Trump attempts to get around this by saying the criminal gang he claims these people are members of are entrenched in the Venezuelan government and are engaged in “irregular warfare” against us. Irregular it surely is, warfare not so much in the traditional meaning of the word that’s consistent with the situations in which the act was invoked in its 227-year history. The question here for the judge and for us is not whether we can’t stand those who were deported, not whether we support more deportations or deportations of criminals, but whether the law was obeyed. So, given the language of the Alien Enemies Act, is it activism for a judge to interpret the statute in accord with its literal language, an interpretation also supported by each of its implementations over centuries?

Last month, a federal district court judge became the second federal judge to block Trump from acting on his claim that the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment doesn’t prevent him from deporting some people born in the United States. The 14th Amendment confers automatic citizenship on “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Trump makes the never-before-accepted argument that as some people are still subject to the laws of their previous country, they are not subject to our laws. Understand this — they are in our country but supposedly not subject to our laws. In 1898, the Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that the 14th Amendment applied to everyone born in the United States (with specific exceptions such as for foreign diplomats), and birthright citizenship has since been applied to people such as those Trump was seeking to deport. The second of three federal judges who rejected Trump’s birthright citizenship argument, a judge appointed in 1980 by President Ronald Reagan, called Trump’s executive order ”blatantly unconstitutional” and in referring to Trump, wrote, “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or something ignored, whether that be for political or personal gain.”

The question again is not whether you agree with Trump’s strained interpretation of the 14th Amendment or whether you think birthright citizenship should be ended, but whether you think that judges who adhere to language and long-standing precedent should be deemed “activist.” And the more pressing question now is whether the executive has to obey the decisions of federal courts. We have always considered ourselves a government of law and not of men (and women), meaning that the law is superior to the whims of whoever happens to be in power at the time. Let us not lose that crucial protection for our democracy.

Steven P. Grossman is the Dean Julius Isaacson Professor Emeritus at the University of Baltimore Law School. His email is sgrossman@ubalt.edu.