Justice Department Accuses Judge of "Digressive Micromanagement" in Deportation Flight Case

The Justice Department (DOJ) has launched a blistering attack against a federal judge, accusing him of "digressive micromanagement" in a case involving deportation flights that transported Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador over the past weekend. The contentious issue revolves around the use of the 1798 wartime-era Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of these individuals, particularly those suspected of being affiliated with the violent gang Tren de Aragua.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, presiding over the case, had previously issued an emergency order temporarily halting the deportation flights for 14 days. This order was intended to allow the court to thoroughly examine the legality of employing the Alien Enemies Act in this context. The DOJ, however, maintains that the flights in question did not violate the court’s order, triggering a series of demands for information from Judge Boasberg that the DOJ now deems excessive and intrusive.

The DOJ’s frustration reached a boiling point, culminating in a formal filing that sharply criticized Judge Boasberg’s actions. The filing, co-signed by prominent figures including Attorney General Pamela Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, argued that the court had become overly fixated on the minutiae of flight schedules and diplomatic relations, to the detriment of addressing the core legal issues at stake.

"The Court has now spent more time trying to ferret out information about the Government’s flight schedules and relations with foreign countries than it did in investigating the facts before certifying the class action in this case," the filing stated, highlighting the DOJ’s belief that the judge’s focus had become misplaced.

The DOJ contends that Judge Boasberg’s "digressive micromanagement" has effectively derailed the case, diverting attention away from the critical legal questions surrounding the use of the Alien Enemies Act and the broader implications for national security and foreign policy. They argue that the court’s preoccupation with the specific details of an airplane’s movements has created an unnecessary distraction that should be halted, at least until the Circuit Court has had an opportunity to review the matter.

At the heart of the dispute is Judge Boasberg’s order requiring the DOJ to answer five specific questions regarding the deportation flights. These questions, demanding precise details about departure and arrival times, locations, and the number of individuals deported solely under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act, were seen by the DOJ as an unwarranted intrusion into the Executive Branch’s domain.

The five questions posed by Judge Boasberg were:

1. What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil and from where?
2. What time did it leave U.S. airspace?
3. What time did it land in which foreign country (including if it made more than one stop)?
4. What time were individuals subject solely to the Proclamation transferred out of U.S. custody?
5. How many people were aboard solely on the basis of the Proclamation?

In response, the DOJ has indicated that it is considering invoking the state secrets privilege to protect certain information sought by the court. They argue that disclosing such sensitive details could jeopardize national security and compromise the United States’ relationships with its allies, particularly in the context of counter-terrorism efforts.

The DOJ further argues that Judge Boasberg’s orders are based on a flawed premise – namely, the notion that the Judicial Branch holds a position of superiority over the Executive Branch, especially in matters of foreign affairs and national security. They assert that the two branches are coequal and that the court’s continued interference in the Executive Branch’s prerogatives is unwarranted and should cease.

The DOJ filing emphasized that "the underlying premise of these orders…is that the Judicial Branch is superior to the Executive Branch, particularly on non-legal matters involving foreign affairs and national security. The Government disagrees. The two branches are coequal, and the Court’s continued intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch, especially on a non-legal and factually irrelevant matter, should end."

The escalating conflict has raised concerns about the separation of powers and the potential for judicial overreach. The DOJ contends that the case has devolved from a legitimate legal dispute over presidential authority into a "picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding."

Judge Boasberg, however, has defended his actions, asserting that the requested information is essential to determining whether the government deliberately violated his previous orders. He granted the DOJ an additional day to either answer the five questions or formally invoke the state secrets doctrine, providing a detailed justification for doing so.

In his response, Judge Boasberg stated that he seeks the information "not as a ‘micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition,’ but to determine if the Government deliberately flouted its Orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be."

The legal battle has also attracted political attention, with calls for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment surfacing in some quarters. The underlying case stems from the Trump administration’s efforts to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan nationals and alleged gang members, a policy that has been challenged by civil rights groups such as Democracy Forward and the ACLU.

These groups argue that the deportations would cause "imminent and irreparable harm" to the migrants involved. Judge Boasberg initially sided with the plaintiffs, issuing an emergency order to halt the deportations and instructing the government to return any planes already in the air to the United States.

However, it appears that two planes carrying over 200 migrants had already departed for El Salvador by the time the order was issued. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that one plane, carrying over 130 individuals removed under the Alien Enemies Act, had already left U.S. airspace when the order was handed down.

The unfolding situation highlights the complex interplay between legal, political, and national security considerations in immigration enforcement. The DOJ’s strong stance against Judge Boasberg’s actions underscores the Executive Branch’s determination to assert its authority in matters of foreign policy and national security, while the judge’s insistence on obtaining detailed information reflects the judiciary’s role in ensuring that government actions comply with the law and respect individual rights. The case is ongoing, and the eventual outcome could have significant implications for the balance of power between the branches of government and the future of immigration enforcement policies.