Justice Department Challenges Judge's Demands on Deportation Flights

The Justice Department, on Tuesday, chose not to provide answers to numerous inquiries from a federal judge who had called for further clarification regarding deportations conducted under a seldom-used wartime statute. In a court filing, the Justice Department maintained that there was “no justification” for requiring additional information and that doing so would not be appropriate. This was in response to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who had ruled for more disclosure surrounding deportation flights. The document did, however, contain a declaration from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official who addressed some of the judge’s questions raised during a Monday hearing. At this session, the judge expressed irritation, feeling that the government had ignored his order to halt deportations and was unwilling to clarify its actions. Judge Boasberg characterized the government’s stance as, “we don’t care, we’ll do what we want.”

On Saturday, Judge Boasberg had issued a verbal order, demanding any planes with deportees in the air return to the U.S. following his restraining order, which blocked the deportations tied to President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This Act was invoked to deport suspected members of a Venezuelan gang. Despite this, the airplanes landed in El Salvador and Honduras, leading to scrutiny over the timing of these flights and the process of custody transfer. Robert Cerna, an ICE acting field director, explained in his statement that “three planes carrying aliens left the United States for El Salvador International Airport” after Trump’s proclamation. Cerna noted that “two planes departed U.S. territory and airspace before 7:25 PM EDT,” the time Judge Boasberg’s written order was logged. “The third plane departed later, but those onboard had Title 8 final removal orders, meaning they were not removed solely because of the Proclamation,” he stated. The plaintiffs, five Venezuelans allegedly linked to Tren de Aragua, pointed out in a legal filing that the judge gave his verbal order around 45 minutes before his written decision, when the flights were still airborne. They referred to public flight tracking records revealing that the first flight touched down in Honduras at 7:36 p.m., and the second in El Salvador at 8:02 p.m. The last flight departed Texas at 7:37 p.m., arriving in Honduras at 9:46 p.m. These details were absent in the government’s filing.

Judge Boasberg stated on Monday that if the DOJ “refuses to provide” further flight details “under any conditions,” it must substantiate this stance, potentially using classified information, and may submit such arguments in a confidential manner if needed. The Justice Department opted not to do this, highlighting its appeal of Boasberg’s previous ruling. “If, however, the Court mandates that the Government furnish more details, it should do so confidentially to protect sensitive information relevant to foreign relations,” the filing suggested. The government argued it did not breach Boasberg’s order, asserting that since the flights had exited U.S. airspace, the passengers had been “removed” beforehand.

In Cerna’s declaration, he also addressed the judge’s inquiry on the number of individuals still in the U.S. under Trump’s proclamation and their custody status. Speaking of Tren de Aragua, Cerna mentioned “approximately 54 members are detained, around 172 are on the non-detained docket, and about 32 are in criminal custody with active detainers. If transferred to ICE custody, they will likely face removal proceedings.” The administration has consistently challenged Boasberg since his decision on Saturday. Overnight, the Justice Department sought to overturn his temporary block on using the 18th-century Act to deport the alleged gang members, calling the judge’s order “overbroad and unconstitutional,” and contesting it as “an affront to the President’s extensive constitutional and legal rights to protect the U.S. from perilous aliens who threaten American safety.” The motion also suggests the judge “lacks jurisdiction,” as the presidential actions under scrutiny aren’t subject to court review, and there exists “no jurisdiction for the Court to demand the government provide additional mission details.”

The administration additionally petitioned a federal appeals court on Monday to dismiss Boasberg from the case, and Trump took to social media on Tuesday morning, advocating for the judge’s impeachment. He described the Obama appointee as a “radical left lunatic” as well as “a troublemaker and agitator.” In a statement that same day, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts remarked, “For over two centuries, it’s recognized that impeachment is not suited for dissent concerning judicial decisions. The usual appellate review process serves that purpose.”