Trump administration to lay out defense of Venezuela deportations despite judge's order
President Donald Trump's administration faces a deadline on Tuesday to explain to a judge why its deportation flights carrying Venezuelan migrants did not violate a judicial order to halt such removals, a day after it argued that any disclosure of further details would jeopardize U.S. national security.
Washington-based U.S. District Judge James Boasberg last week instructed Justice Department lawyers to give him a justification for the administration's failure to return two plane loads of alleged Venezuelan gang members deported to El Salvador on March 15 despite his order blocking such deportations for two weeks. The administration has said the flights were carried out under a little-used 18th-century law.
Boasberg also has sought more details on the timing of the flights and how many Venezuelans were aboard to help him determine whether the administration violated his order.
The judge gave the administration the option of invoking the state secrets privilege, a doctrine that limits the disclosure of sensitive information in civil litigation, and justify its decision to do so. In court papers filed late on Monday, the Justice Department said it would be invoking the privilege, writing that Boasberg's inquiry was judicial overreach infringing upon the executive branch's authority over diplomatic and national security matters.
"Disclosure of this information could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to the foreign relations interests of the United States," Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in a declaration filed with the judge.
Following Tuesday's deadline for the administration's explanation, lawyers for the Venezuelan migrants who brought the legal challenge to the deportations will have until March 31 to respond. Boasberg has warned of potential consequences if he concludes that the administration violated his order, but has not specified what those would be.
The case has emerged as a major test of the Republican president's sweeping assertion of executive power. With his party holding a majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate and largely falling in line behind the president's agenda, federal judges often have emerged as the only constraint on Trump's wave of executive actions.
After Boasberg temporarily halted the deportations, Trump called for the judge's impeachment in a process that could lead to his removal. In response, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement rebuking Trump and stating that appeals, not impeachment, are the proper response to disagreements with judicial decisions.
'NAZIS GOT BETTER TREATMENT'
Trump this month invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify the removal of alleged members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua without final removal orders from immigration judges, as typically needed.
Boasberg temporarily halted those deportations because he said it was not clear that the gang's presence in the United States constituted an act of war by a foreign nation as described in the act. The Alien Enemies Act had previously been used three times in U.S. history, most recently to intern and remove Japanese, German and Italian immigrants during World War Two.
Family members of many of the deported Venezuelan migrants deny the alleged gang ties. Lawyers for one of the deportees, a Venezuelan professional soccer player and youth coach, said U.S. officials had wrongly labeled him a gang member based on a tattoo of a crown meant to reference his favorite team, Real Madrid.
A hearing was held on Monday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the administration's bid to halt enforcement of Boasberg's order. At the contentious hearing, U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett said the Venezuelans deported were not afforded due process to contest the administration's assertion that they were Tren de Aragua members.
"Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here," Millett said, to which Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign responded, "We certainly dispute the Nazi analogy."
The D.C. Circuit panel did not indicate when it would rule.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
154,000 federal workers who took DOGE buyouts are being paid to go fishing, watch Dungeons and Dragons streams and hunt for new jobs
The government is paying more than 154,000 federal employees not to work after they accepted the deferred resignation offer — and they're spending their paid leave job hunting, doing yoga, and watching YouTube, according to a report. The figure, reported by the Washington Post, accounts for the tens of thousands of federal workers who accepted the government's offer as of June that allowed employees to 'retain all pay and benefits' through September 30 and voluntarily leave their jobs. The offer, originally sent out by the Office of Personnel Management in January, came after President Donald Trump mandated in-person work requirements for the federal workforce, the size of which the Department of Government Efficiency aimed to significantly shrink. The move has led to a rapid reduction in federal workers, two officials at the Office of Personnel Management told the Post, with the resignations accounting for nearly seven percent of the government's civilian workforce. The Independent has reached out to the OPM and White House for comment. 'Ultimately, the deferred resignation program was not only legal, it provided over 150,000 civil servants a dignified and generous departure from the federal government,' the agency spokesperson told the Post. 'It also delivered incredible relief to the American taxpayer. No previous administration has gotten even close to saving American taxpayers this amount of money in such a short amount of time.' Although DOGE set out to eliminate 'waste' in the federal government, some critics have argued that the buyouts were a waste of taxpayer dollars. Those who took the offer, meanwhile, have been spending the break as they please. An Agriculture Department employee, who's been on paid leave since April, told the Post that he's spent his free time watching comedians play a Dungeons and Dragons game, improv, and crafters on YouTube. He applied to more than 130 jobs before landing one at an animal health company that offered him a salary much greater than the $61,000 salary from the government, he said. For six weeks, his federal job and new job would overlap, meaning he'd be temporarily raking in cash from two salaries. His new role would earn him enough that his wife would be able to quit her job, he told the outlet. In the meantime, he goes fishing and dines out, all on the government's dime. He recalled telling his wife: 'As much as I don't want to admit it, this ended up being a blessing in disguise.' Brian Griffin, a former marketing specialist at the Agriculture Department making $132,000, had been planning to retire in December when he was given the deferred resignation offer. He's been on leave since May. 'When they are offering me full pay and benefits from May through September, you have to be kind of silly to say no to that,' Griffin told the Post. One worker has found the new reality a bit more difficult. An Education Department employee, who makes $130,000, said she was put on administrative leave — a move that has left her reeling. 'My work is my whole identity,' said the employee, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. 'I'm also sensitive to the fact that the American public would say, 'What are you crying about? You're getting paid.'' The government has so far paid her $65,000 not to work, while she has also accrued three weeks of vacation time since being put on leave. Some of her free time is dedicated to swimming and doing yoga but for most of it, she's frustrated. 'I will sometimes wake up and say, 'Why do I get out of bed today?'' she told the outlet. Aside from the emotional effects the cuts had on many government employees, the American taxpayer could also be affected by DOGE's workforce reductions. An analysis by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington last week, which looked at a few of the agencies impacted, found that DOGE's workforce slashes could result in a loss of over $10 billion in U.S.-based economic activity and the closure of programs that have put over $26 billion in funds back into the pockets of taxpayers. A minority staff report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Thursday also revealed that DOGE generated an estimated $21 billion in waste on mass layoffs and terminations. That figure included $14.8 billion for the deferred resignation program. 'This report is a searing indictment of DOGE's false claims. At the very same time that the Trump Administration is cutting health care, nutrition assistance, and emergency services in the name of 'efficiency' and 'savings,' they have enabled DOGE's reckless waste of at least $21.7 billion dollars,' Blumenthal, the subcommittee's ranking member, said in a statement to the Post. 'As my PSI investigation has shown, DOGE was clearly never about efficiency or saving the American taxpayer money.'
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariffs will damage economy 'by definition': Former US trade rep
President Trump unveiled a host of new trade deals on Thursday and granted Mexico a 90-day reprieve, just one day before the self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline to finalize trade deals. Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former US trade representative under the Obama administration, discusses the potential long-term results of Trump's trade policy and its effect on the economy. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Catalysts. Related videos Why Danes may have hit their limit on retirement age Britain's gas imports surge as Miliband abandons North Sea Is this thrillingly cheap FTSE growth share about to fulfil its massive potential? Bank of England set to split again in face of inflation, job risks Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Politico
2 minutes ago
- Politico
Leavitt cleans up Bessent's Social Security privatization comments: ‘Supplement, not substitute'
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump will protect Social Security, after Bessent said newborn accounts are a 'backdoor for privatizing' it. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent arrives before President Donald Trump speaks at an event to promote his proposal to improve Americans' access to their medical records in the East Room of the White House, July 30, 2025. | Mark Schiefelbein/AP By Nicole Markus 07/31/2025 02:56 PM EDT White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that President Donald Trump is 'wholeheartedly committed' to protecting Social Security, after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent framed his 'Trump accounts' as a 'backdoor for privatizing' it. 'What the secretary of Treasury was saying, and what this administration believes, is that these Trump newborn accounts — which is an incredibly creative and great provision that was in the One Big Beautiful Bill for newborn children, and families and future generations of Americans — will help supplement, not substitute, Social Security,' Leavitt said during Thursday's briefing. The tax-deferred investment accounts allow parents to contribute up to $5,000 a year for their children. The accounts allow for penalty-free withdrawals after age 59. The government will also contribute $1,000 to each baby born from 2025 to 2028.
