The war between Mr. Trump and judges on deportation

Over the past weeks, the Donald Trump administration has repeatedly asked the court’s authority in restricting the president’s power, harshly criticizing judges to block the decree from the White House boss, and to find a way to bypass adverse judgments.

A number of legal experts said that this protest act was in danger of breaking the fragile balance between the power branches of the government, including the subordinate courts issued the initial ruling of the president’s execution, but they could be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Other experts make more moderate assessments of the Trump administration’s drastic legal position, note that the judicial system is under great pressure.

Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Georgetown, said the United States is witnessing “unprecedented level of resistance, whether intentional or unintentional, federal government with judges’ rules”.

The confrontation culminated at the tensions on the evening of March 17, in which James E. Boasberg, Judge of the Washington Federal Court, asked the government to explain the reason they seemed to ignore his command on the evening of March 15, asking aircraft carrying 200 Venezuelian people to be forced to be a member of the gang on De Aragua to turn to the journey to El Salvado.

Accordingly, President Trump on March 14 secretly signed a reinforcement of the foreign enemy law in 1798 to quickly deport the gang members on De Aragua. One day later, five immigrants filed a lawsuit to prevent them from being taken from the US under this command and Judge Boasberg issued a postponement with an oral indicator.

The judge then expanded his order to block the expulsion of all Venezuelan migrants under the above law, which was only applied during wartime.

When the order was given by Judge Boasberg, two flights carrying the exporter took off. The third trip took off after Boasberg made a decision, although the Trump administration officials said that the dossier was submitted to the court on March 17 that people on the third flight were expelled by another legal authority.

All three flights continued their journey and landed in El Salvado after Judge Boasberg ordered them to come back. According to the Trump administration, 137 gang members were expelled under the law of foreign enemy.

On March 17, Judge Boasberg asked the Trump administration to explain the ignorance of the aircraft. The judge also forced the government to detail the time of promulgating the expulsion order and providing the number of gang members still in the US to obey the above order.

At the hearing session that night, the judge was surprised when the Lawyer Abhishek Kambli said that the order asked the plane to turn only in effect if he gave in writing.

“It’s really too much,” Boasberg said.

The government further explained that they were limited to providing the Court with more information about flights because of security concerns. Judge Boasberg proved disagreements, note that he still regularly considers the files that are classified in confidential documents.

The judge showed an uncomfortable face when lawyer Kambli asked his authority about his command to order the plane to turn when they were out of the US airspace.

Boasberg asked whether Kambli “wanted to imply that the president had another powers” when a plane was operating in international airspace.

“We believe we have obeyed the order,” the lawyer answered.

A few hours later, Justice Minister Pam Bondi called the command from Judge Boasberg “an act of violating the president’s powers”.

“Those are foreign terrorists. The president has determined them like that,” she told reporter Jeanine Pirro from Fox News. “And we will continue to implement foreign enemy law.”

Lawyers of the Ministry of Justice previously wrote a letter to the Federal Appeal Court in Washington, accusing Judge Boasberg “Executive judicial rights” and asked his superior to replace him.

“The government cannot and will not be forced to answer sensitive questions about national security as well as external relations in such a hurry,” the assistant of judicial minister Drew Ensign wrote in the letter.

Michael J. Gerhardt, the Constitutional Law Professor at the University of North Carolina, said the reaction from the government for the command given by Judge Boasberg could be one of the first actions that clearly affirmed the Trump’s resistance stance with the power of the judicial branch.

According to him, the reason that the Trump administration offers to allow deportation flights to continue the journey despite the “truly unbelievable” court orders.

Mr. Trump’s advisers argue that they are only using the existing legal mechanisms for the president, although the reality is a number of mechanisms, such as foreign enemy law, almost not applied in modern history.

“But it is in the documents,” an unnamed official said.

On March 16, a series of influential people on social networks supported President Trump and the White House officials posted the government’s actions, sharing a video of tattooed men who were led to the plane and shaved inside Cecot prison in El Salvador.

Some of the White House public statements were considered superficial and challenged by criticisms and challenges from judges. However, according to a government official, they consulted from lawyers and senior leaders of the National Security Council, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Security and many other agencies before making posts and comments on social networks.

Leading White House advisors said they were confident in their actions and affirmed that President Trump was fully aware of the upcoming legal battles.

“I said this did not mean to respect any government before and I was trying to express it in the most delicate way,” the second government official said. “The White House is brave enough to do that.”

According to Josh Blackman, Professor of Houston Law School, the judges ordering the deportation flights to turn their heads is unusual and Boasberg should give the government the opportunity to answer the ruling by him.

Nicholas R. Parrillo, a professor at the Yale Law School, is not uncommon for government agencies to “have difficulty or unable to fully comply with” orders from the Court, especially when it requires an “expensive or complicated” action.

However, many plaintiffs in other lawsuits also accused the Trump administration violating the Court.

Rasha Alawieh, a 34 -year -old expert at the University of Brown, was expelled by the Trump administration on Lebanon on March 14, although a cousin filed a complaint to the court in Massachusetts and the judge issued a ban on deporting her. Alawieh’s lawyer said she had a valid visa and accused the government that “deliberately” violated the court’s ruling.

The US government on March 17 replied that the person in charge of the Customs Office and the Border Protection (CBP) was not informed of the judge’s ruling in Massachusetts until Alawieh was expelled and CBP would never “refuse to comply with the court orders”.

The Trump administration has now faced a number of failures in the court. The judges blocked the orders of the White House, including orders to terminate citizenship according to the birthplace, deciding to dismiss thousands of federal employees in the probationary period or canceling ethnic various initiatives.

The Trump administration officials were angry at the judgments from the court. Vice President JD Vance said that judges “were not allowed to control the legal power of the executive agency”, while billionaire Elon Musk called for impeachment of them.

According to David Super, a law professor at the University of Georgetown, the government tried to circumvent some ruling by changing the legal basis for his actions after being blocked.

“In some cases, they tried to justify not to comply with the court command by giving extremely unbelievable explanations,” Super said. “For example, they raise new reasons to still do what they are ordered to not do and declare this command only applies to the old reasons they mentioned earlier.”

The government has fiercely opposed the judicial power in a dossier submitted to the recent Supreme Court, which requires judges to allow the application of a ban on citizens’ places to be born in some states, only to stop the president’s orders in the states that sued it to prevent it.

“The Supreme Court should claim everything was more than enough,” the lawyer representing the Federal Government Sarah Harris wrote. “Many years of experience have shown that the executive agency cannot perform the function if any judge is anywhere can affect the President’s actions.”