The Trump administration maintains that it did not violate a federal judge’s order when it failed to recall planes that were transporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is currently assessing whether the government overlooked his directive that prohibited the deportation of individuals alleged to be gang members without due process. This case has become a focal point of escalating tensions between the administration and federal courts.
In a 14-page document submitted late Tuesday night, the Justice Department clarified to Boasberg why it did not reverse the two flights carrying suspected Tren de Aragua gang members, despite his verbal command to do so.
“These removals complied with the law and protected Americans from members of a foreign terrorist organization. The Government will continue to uphold the removals before this Court and, if necessary, on appeal to contest this Court’s two injunctions issued on March 15,” the filing states. It is signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and other high-ranking DOJ officials.
The government argues that it did not technically “remove” any of the migrants after the judge’s order was given, stating that it “complied with the Court’s injunction concerning the two flights at issue” because it did not formally remove anyone after 7:25 p.m. Saturday, though it admits it “did not order any removal flights to return to the United States.”
The DOJ further contended that Boasberg’s order lacked clarity and sufficient authority to be enforceable, claiming it “failed to meet the requirements for issuing a binding injunction” as the judge did not provide the reasons for the injunction.
“It is well-established that an oral directive is not enforceable as an injunction,” the filing asserts.
Later in the document, the DOJ argued that once the flights were outside U.S. airspace, they were “military matters,” and that President Trump has the authority to direct military flights at his discretion.
“DOJ invokes state secrets privilege”
On Monday, the administration called upon a state secrets privilege and declined to provide Boasberg with additional details regarding the deportations.
Boasberg, the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, has requested information about the landing times of the planes and the identities of those on board, which the administration argues could jeopardize “diplomatic and national security concerns.”
Government attorneys also petitioned an appeals court on Monday to lift Boasberg’s injunction and allow deportations to proceed, a move that seemed to divide the three-judge panel.
Circuit Court Judge Patricia Millett remarked, “Nazis received better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than what has transpired here,” pointing out the difference in the treatment of Nazis detained in the U.S. during World War II versus the Venezuelan immigrants deported to El Salvador this month under the same statute.
“We certainly contest the Nazi analogy,” government attorney Drew Ensign replied during a session of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Millett highlighted that during World War II, Nazis were presented before hearing boards under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, differentiating this from the Trump administration’s policy of deporting alleged Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador without allowing court appearances.
Millett is one of the three judges who will decide whether to revoke a March 15 order that temporarily barred deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. No ruling was announced from the bench on Monday.
Judge Justin Walker, who is also on the appeals court, appeared to be more receptive to the administration’s argument that the migrants should contest their detention in Texas instead of in the capital. The third judge on the panel refrained from posing any questions.
The administration has facilitated the transfer of hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, invoking the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II.
On the same day, attorneys representing the Venezuelan government initiated legal action in El Salvador to free 238 Venezuelans detained in a maximum-security prison following their deportation by the U.S.
The Alien Enemies Act permits the deportation of noncitizens without an opportunity to appear before an immigration or federal court judge. President Trump issued a proclamation declaring the Tren de Aragua gang as an invading force.
Ensign posited that Boasberg’s ruling represented an “unprecedented and substantial intrusion upon executive branch powers.”
“The president must comply with the Constitution and laws like everyone else,” responded Millett, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama in 2013.
Judge Justin Walker, nominated by Mr. Trump in 2020, appeared more inclined towards the administration’s arguments based on his questioning. Walker noted the government’s claim that the plaintiffs could have filed their lawsuit in Texas, where the migrants were detained.
“You could have filed the exact same complaint you filed here in Texas district court,” Walker told ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt.
“We have no way of knowing if everyone is in Texas,” Gelernt replied.
Walker also asked the plaintiffs’ lawyer to provide any previous cases where a judicial directive halting “a national security operation with foreign implications” survived appellate scrutiny.
Gelernt accused the administration of seeking to utilize the law to “short circuit” immigration processes. The attorneys for the plaintiffs expressed that they had no means to individually contest all deportations before the flights of Venezuelans departed on March 15.
“This has all been executed in secrecy,” Gelernt asserted.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1990, served as the third judge on the panel and did not pose any questions during the nearly two-hour hearing.
Boasberg, an Obama nominee, ruled that immigrants facing deportation must have the opportunity to dispute their classification as alleged gang members. He indicated that there is “a strong public interest in preventing the mistaken deportation of individuals based on categories they cannot contest.”
“The public also has a significant interest in the Government’s adherence to the law,” the judge stated.
Mr. Trump and his supporters are calling for Boasberg’s impeachment.
In an unusual statement, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts remarked, “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements regarding judicial decisions.”
Just after midnight Monday, Mr. Trump posted a message on social media questioning Boasberg’s impartiality and suggesting he be disbarred.
