UJ
—
On Friday, a federal judge will engage with attorneys from the Justice Department following President Donald Trump’s demand for his impeachment regarding the judge’s handling of a lawsuit challenging Trump’s extensive wartime power to expedite the deportation of noncitizens.
This hearing, presided over by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, arises as he faces a significant conflict with the administration over his recent ruling that temporarily halted Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, while he investigates whether the administration disregarded those directives with deportation flights on Saturday night.
Judge Boasberg, appointed by former President Barack Obama and currently the chief judge of a Washington, D.C. trial court, has become a representation of the numerous district court judges who have impeded Trump’s agenda, even if temporarily, during the initial phase of his second term.
Earlier this week, Trump reiterated calls for Boasberg’s impeachment, which led to an unusual response from Chief Justice John Roberts, who criticized the threat.
Boasberg’s dissatisfaction with the department became increasingly evident on Thursday as he expressed his frustration at being provided with “woefully insufficient” information following his inquiry for more details regarding the referenced deportations.
“The Government once again shirked its responsibilities,” stated the judge. He further reproached the DOJ for submitting a sworn statement from an ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations official who “reiterated the same general information regarding the flights” and mentioned that Cabinet officials “are currently actively deliberating whether to invoke the state secrets privilege concerning the other facts requested by the Court’s order.”
“The Government cannot present a regional ICE official to confirm Cabinet-level discussions of the state-secrets privilege; indeed, his assertion in that regard is solely based on his unverified ‘understand[ing],’” he continued.
In a critical move escalating the standoff with the DOJ, Boasberg demanded that its attorneys “show cause” as to how two deportation flights that were permitted to proceed last Saturday did not contravene his orders issued that day, which temporarily prohibited Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act for swiftly deporting individuals linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The judge had directed that all aircraft carrying migrants slated for deportation under the act be turned back immediately pending a legal challenge mounted by the American Civil Liberties Union and others against Trump’s application of the 18th-century law.
However, ACLU attorneys swiftly accused the administration of disregarding his orders, while the Justice Department has consistently maintained that it did not breach the directives last weekend.
“There’s been substantial discussion over the past seven weeks about a constitutional crisis. People are using that term liberally. I feel we are approaching it,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt remarked to Boasberg earlier this week.
The Justice Department has appealed Boasberg’s temporary restraining orders to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and they have also requested that the judge entirely rescind the orders, a matter he is set to deliberate during the Friday afternoon hearing.
On television and social media, as well as in legal documents, officials from the Trump administration have presented a variety of justifications for believing that the judge overstepped his authority in issuing the orders, asserting that Trump’s use of the AEA is immune from any federal court scrutiny.
“We have an unelected federal judge attempting to influence foreign policies and the Alien Enemies Act, areas over which he has no jurisdiction. And there are 261 reasons why Americans are safer now – that’s because those individuals are out of this country,” Attorney General Pam Bondi stated on Fox News Wednesday.
Boasberg, Bondi claimed, represents the Trump administration’s setbacks in the judicial system.
“This pattern has been consistent among these liberal judges,” she remarked. “This judge had no authority to act. They are interfering in foreign affairs, intruding into our governance, and the pertinent question should be why is a judge attempting to safeguard terrorists who have invaded our nation rather than protecting American citizens.”
Bengali (Bangladesh) · 
English (United States) ·