U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is presiding over the largest stakes legal battle in American history.
Background about the case
The case is about the Trump administration’s use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to deport some 250 alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. At its core, this act was intended for use during wartime. It has been called out for disingenuousness, as the administration continued deportation charter flights after Boasberg’s temporary restraining order was issued.
The Trump administration created an outcry in 2018 by threatening to use the Alien Enemies Act. Their goal was to deport people to the Cecot mega-prison in El Salvador. Following their deportation in July, an agreement soon developed between the U.S. and Venezuelan governments. This accord set the stage for the repatriation of the Venezuelan nationals to their home country. They had spent three or more months in detention at Cecot before their repatriation.
Judge Boasberg took a more active role by continuing to question. He’s looking into whether the Trump administration flouted his March orders, including a verbal order to end deportation flights. The administration continued to maintain to the very end that it did not violate Boasberg’s order. They supported this assertion with legal opinion from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove.
“Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove provided DHS with legal advice regarding the court’s order as to flights that had left the United States before the order issued.” – [gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.195.0.pdf]
The Department of Justice also argued that their interpretation of the court’s directive was lawful and consistent with a reasonable reading of Boasberg’s order.
“As explained below, that decision was lawful and was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s order.” – [gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.195.0.pdf]
The government’s counterargument was that the court’s written order did not compel the return of removed detainees. This complicated the contention even further.
“Specifically, the court’s written order did not purport to require the return of detainees who had already been removed, and the earlier oral directive was not a binding injunction, especially after the written order.” – [gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.195.0.pdf]
The judge’s inquiry raises questions about the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement and its reliance on historical legislation for contemporary issues. As the litigation continues, these cases bring to light the important but delicate balance between judicial oversight of executive action and substantive deportation policy.