The Trump administration has triggered controversy by invoking a “state secrets privilege” regarding the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. This legal stance has been employed to withhold additional information from a federal judge about the deportations, conducted under a historic wartime law from the 18th century. The move has become a significant issue amid growing tensions with the federal judiciary.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has raised concerns over the deportations, is assessing whether the government defied his order to reroute planes carrying the deportees. He had inhibited the expulsions of individuals suspected of being gang affiliates, citing due process violations. Boasberg demanded details regarding the flights and passenger lists, data that the administration claims could jeopardize diplomatic and national security interests.
Government attorneys sought an appeals court’s intervention to reverse Judge Boasberg’s order and permit the deportations to continue, highlighting a possible division among judges. During a session at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Patricia Millett pointed out that Nazis detained during World War II were treated with more legal fairness than the Venezuelans deported this month under the same statute. An attorney from the Justice Department, Drew Ensign, countered her analogy during the hearing.
The case involves three appellate judges who are set to decide on the administration’s request to lift a ban placed on March 15 that temporarily halted deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. No immediate decision was reached from the bench. Another judge showed some openness to the view that the migrants should challenge their detention in Texas instead of Washington D.C., while the third judge abstained from inquiries.
This legal battle arises from the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law not applied since World War II, to relocate hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. Meanwhile, legal representatives for the Venezuelan government are seeking the release of 238 Venezuelans, currently detained in a Salvadoran high-security prison, deported there by the United States.
The Trump administration’s appeal followed after Boasberg obstructed these deportations, citing the lack of fair process for those labeled as gang members. Despite this, aircraft meant to relocate the migrants were not returned to the U.S. The Alien Enemies Act permits deportations sans judicial hearing, and a recent presidential proclamation designated the Tren de Aragua gang as an invading entity.
During the appeals court session, Judge Justin Walker, appointed by Trump, seemed receptive to the administration’s arguments, suggesting that the lawsuit could have been filed in Texas. In contrast, another ACLU attorney contended that the administration was leveraging the law to circumvent immigration procedures, emphasizing the secrecy surrounding the events.
While one judge on the panel refrained from questioning, Boasberg, having previously ruled that the deportees deserve a chance to contest their gang membership designation, stated that mistaken deportation based on unchallenged categories presents a significant public concern.
Amidst the legal proceedings, there’s been a call from Trump and his advocates for Boasberg’s impeachment, though Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has deemed such actions inappropriate for resolving judicial disagreements. Despite this, Trump criticized Boasberg’s impartiality via social media, just hours after Monday began.
In a recent hearing, Boasberg committed to investigating whether the executive branch had breached his order to reroute the planes. The Justice Department maintains that the guidance provided orally by Boasberg did not equate to a binding order, emphasizing that only written commands are enforceable and that those couldn’t affect flights already airborne.