WASHINGTON — A federal judge pressed a Department of Justice lawyer Monday over why the Trump administration did not comply with his order to temporarily halt deportations under an 18th century law and asked why key information was being withheld about the flights from over the weekend.
In a tense hearing, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg summarized the administration’s position on his court order from Saturday as “we don’t care, we’ll do what we want.” Boasberg had directed any planes in the air carrying deportees to return to the U.S.
The Justice Department attorney, Abhishek Kambli, said the administration had complied with the judge’s written order, which came hours after Boasberg’s oral ruling at an emergency hearing Saturday. Kambli argued the written ruling took precedence over the one issued from the bench, adding, “We believe that we’ve complied with the order.”
The judge said an order is an order.
“You’re saying that you felt that you could disregard it because it wasn’t a written order,” Boasberg said, calling the Justice Department’s argument “a stretch.”
He asked Kambli numerous questions about the flights – including how many there were and how many were in the air at the time – and the lawyer refused to provide any details, citing national security concerns.
“I am only authorized to say what we have said” in the court filings, Kambli said.
The filing in question said the plaintiffs in the case “cannot use these proceedings to interfere with the President’s national-security and foreign-affairs authority, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.”
The judge ordered Kambli to answer several questions about the flights by noon Tuesday, and to give him an official explanation about why he was not able to disclose that information in court at Monday’s hearing, and what forum they can answer those questions in.
Boasberg said he would issue a written order with those questions after the hearing “since apparently my oral orders don’t appear to carry much weight.” He scheduled another hearing for the matter on Friday.
Just ahead of the hearing, the Justice Department sent a letter to a federal appeals court seeking to remove Boasberg from the case, arguing he endangered national security by having an inquiry about the initiative the administration announced on Saturday.
“The Government cannot—and will not—be forced to answer sensitive questions of national security and foreign relations in a rushed posture without orderly briefing and a showing that these questions are somehow material to a live issue. Answering them, especially on the proposed timetable, is flagrantly improper and presents grave risks to the conduct of the Government in areas wholly unsuited to micromanagement supervision by a district court judge,” the letter said.
The court fight centers around the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law, to deport individuals that it claims are part of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The 18th-century law gives the president the ability to quickly deport immigrants from a “hostile” nation during war or when a foreign government perpetuates an “invasion.” It hasn’t been invoked since 1941.
Boasberg scheduled the hearing to determine the timeline of events since his Saturday evening order temporarily blocking Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Tren de Aragua members.
On Saturday, the judge told a Justice Department lawyer to “immediately” inform his clients that any planes involved in deportations — and the people inside them that were subject to his order — needed to be returned to the U.S. However, the government reported in a Sunday filing that “some gang members subject to removal under the Proclamation had already been removed from United States territory” before Boasberg’s order was issued.
“However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you,” Boasberg had said on Saturday. “But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”
The Justice Department had sought to vacate the Monday hearing in the hours before it occurred, saying that the questions about planes’ locations “implicate sensitive questions of national security, foreign relations, and coordination with foreign nations” that were “neither material nor appropriate.”
Julia Ainsley contributed.
