Judge Scolds Government Lawyers Over Venezuelan Deportation Case, Questions Legality of Trump’s Actions
A federal judge sharply criticized government lawyers for what he perceived as disrespectful conduct and a lack of transparency in the case involving President Donald Trump’s attempt to deport Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act. Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has temporarily blocked the deportations and has indicated he will further investigate whether the removals violated his order, raising significant questions about the Trump administration’s use of executive power and its adherence to due process.
Judge Boasberg expressed concern over the government’s actions, specifically the timing and execution of the deportation orders. He noted that the proclamation authorizing the deportations was signed late on a Friday or early Saturday morning, and individuals were swiftly placed on planes for removal. This timeline raised suspicion in the judge’s mind, suggesting the administration was deliberately rushing the deportations to avoid legal challenges or scrutiny.
"What’s concerning to me is why was this proclamation essentially signed in the dark on Friday or Friday night or early Saturday morning and then people were rushed onto planes," Boasberg stated. "It seems to me the only reason to do that is if you know it’s a problem and you want to get them out of the country."
The judge also highlighted what he considered to be "intemperate and disrespectful" language used by government lawyers in court documents. While he did not specify all the instances, he pointed to one filing that described the judge’s inquiries about the number of people deported on Saturday as a "micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition." This language, in the judge’s view, demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial process and the court’s legitimate concerns.
Adding to the complexity of the case, two deportation flights carrying hundreds of individuals were en route to El Salvador when Judge Boasberg issued a verbal order to turn them around. Government lawyers argued that no planes took off after the written order was issued and that the oral order was not legally binding. However, Judge Boasberg directly questioned the government’s position on whether the oral order carried any weight, asking Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign if the government’s position on Saturday was that the oral order didn’t count. While Ensign affirmed that he understood the order and relayed it to other officials, the exchange highlighted a potential point of contention and a perceived lack of clarity in the government’s response to the judge’s directives.
A central issue in the case is whether the Venezuelans being deported have an opportunity to deny any affiliation with the Tren de Aragua (TdA) crime gang, which is the basis for their classification as "enemy aliens" under the Alien Enemies Act. Judge Boasberg questioned what would happen if an individual was not actually a member of the gang, raising concerns about the potential for wrongful deportations.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the Venezuelans, argued that past invocations of the Alien Enemies Act during times of war did not result in mass deportations without due process. He emphasized that during World War II, hearings were held for individuals targeted under the act. Gelernt characterized the current situation as a "separation of powers issue," arguing that the court needs to determine if Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act aligns with the intent of Congress.
Gelernt further warned that if the president could unilaterally declare any group an enemy and deport its members without judicial review, "any nationality in this country has gangs and all of a sudden they could be subject to this" and face deportation to a potentially dangerous situation. He questioned whether Venezuelans would then be deported to El Salvador and wind up in a Salvadoran jail.
Judge Boasberg echoed these concerns, asking Ensign what would happen if Trump declared Chinese fishermen enemies and began deporting them. “The policy ramifications are incredibly troublesome, problematic and concerning,” Boasberg said. “Theyre out of luck, right? That’s alarming.” He expressed unease about the potential for abuse of power under the Alien Enemies Act.
Ensign argued that the Alien Enemies Act granted the president broad authority, and it was up to Congress to amend the law if it was deemed problematic. He said that courts lack meaningful standards to evaluate what constitutes an "invasion," which is the justification Trump used for targeting the Tren de Aragua.
"I believe that is how Congress set this up to be," Ensign said.
The government has appealed Judge Boasberg’s block on the deportations to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with a hearing scheduled for Tuesday.
When asked about the possibility that non-gang members were being deported, Trump said that the deportees went through "a very strong vetting process." "If there’s anything like that, we would certainly want to find out," Trump told reporters. "We don’t want to make that kind of mistake."
The case highlights the ongoing tension between the Trump administration and the judiciary, particularly regarding immigration and national security policies. Judge Boasberg’s pointed questions and criticisms of the government’s handling of the deportations underscore the court’s role in safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that executive power is exercised within constitutional limits. The outcome of the appeals hearing will have significant implications for the future of Venezuelan deportations and the scope of the Alien Enemies Act.
