Justice Department Stonewalls Judge’s Request on Venezuelan Deportation Flights, Citing Potential for ‘Catastrophic’ Disclosure
Washington D.C. – The Justice Department is embroiled in a heated legal battle with a federal judge over the deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the controversial Alien Enemies Act. The department on Wednesday refused to comply with a court order to provide information regarding the deportation flights, instead requesting a postponement to allow for appeals courts to potentially block what it characterized as a potentially "catastrophic" disclosure of sensitive information.
The Justice Department’s action marks a significant escalation in a legal dispute that has already drawn considerable attention, prompting President Donald Trump to call for the impeachment of Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg and triggering a rare rebuke of the president by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
At the heart of the dispute is Judge Boasberg’s demand for specific details about the deportation flights, including the number of flights that occurred on Saturday, the number of passengers on each flight, and their final destinations. The judge sought this information as part of his assessment of whether the government had defied his previous oral and written orders to halt the flights and potentially turn around those already in the air.
However, lawyers representing the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, argued that providing the requested information to Judge Boasberg would infringe upon President Trump’s constitutional authority to carry out deportations and his prerogative to conduct foreign relations. The lawyers asserted that releasing such sensitive information could potentially lead to its disclosure to Venezuelan nationals or members of the press, thereby undermining the administration’s foreign policy objectives.
"Once that secondary disclosure occurred, any opportunity for appellate review would be moot; the damage would be done, and the effect on United States foreign policy could be catastrophic," the lawyers wrote in their legal filing.
The Justice Department lawyers maintained that the government had fully complied with Judge Boasberg’s written order blocking the flights, but they argued that a prior oral order issued while the planes were already in the air was not legally enforceable. Furthermore, they contended that President Trump, as the commander-in-chief of the military and the nation’s head of foreign affairs, possessed the inherent authority to conduct the deportation flights.
In an attempt to navigate this complex legal landscape, the government lawyers requested a one-day delay to provide the flight information, during which time they would consider whether to invoke the president’s state-secrets privilege to withhold the information altogether. Judge Boasberg granted the department’s request for a one-day delay, setting a new deadline of noon on Thursday for the submission of the flight information.
The Justice Department lawyers have also filed an appeal of Judge Boasberg’s order blocking the flights. An initial decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected this week and could potentially supersede the judge’s request for information.
The legal battle is widely expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court, where the high court has previously issued guidelines on the application of the state-secrets privilege.
The Justice Department lawyers also criticized Judge Boasberg for his insistence on obtaining the flight information, characterizing the dispute over flight schedules as a "picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding."
"That observation reflects how upside-down this case has become, as digressive micromanagement has outweighed consideration of the case’s legal issues," the lawyers wrote.
President Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act on Friday, and the order went into effect on Saturday, authorizing the deportation of foreign citizens without hearings if they are citizens of a country at war with or has invaded the U.S.
Before Trump, the act had only been invoked three times, during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. However, Trump and his lawyers argue that the Venezuelan crime group Tren de Aragua is invading the U.S. for criminal purposes.
In response to the legal challenge, President Trump called for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment, prompting a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts emphasized the importance of respecting the independence of the judiciary, stating that disagreements with judicial decisions should be addressed through the appeals process rather than through personal attacks on judges. The Chief Justice made it clear that it is the duty of the executive branch to respect the rulings of the court unless those rulings are overturned through proper legal channels.
The situation has set up a constitutional clash between the executive and judicial branches of government, raising questions about the limits of presidential power, the role of the judiciary in overseeing executive actions, and the balance between national security concerns and individual rights. The Justice Department’s decision to withhold the requested information from Judge Boasberg further underscores the gravity of the situation and the potential for a protracted legal battle that could have significant implications for the future of immigration enforcement and the separation of powers.
