The Trump administration probably acted in court in the court by not making the flights, says judge

A federal judge concluded a probable cause that the Trump administration had acted as a court when the officials challenged its order last month to transmit two planes carrying alleged members of Venezuelans gangs in El Salvador.

The “voluntary disobedience of the administration of judicial orders” without consequences would make “a solemn mockery” of “the Constitution itself”, wrote on Wednesday the American district judge James Boasberg.

Last month Boasberg ordered that the government transformed two flights carrying more than 200 alleged members of Tren from Aragua to Salvador after the Trump administration invoked the Extraterrestrial Enemies Act-a war authority used to expel non-citizens who have little to do in the United States.

The authorities did not run thefts, but insisted that they “complied with the law” by questioning the legitimacy of the order of Boasberg. According to the doj, the oral instructions of Boasberg leading the flight to be returned were defective, and his later written order had the explanation necessary to apply.

Boasberg criticized the Trump administration for carrying out a “rushed withdrawal operation” on March 15 and 16 in the hours following an order blocking deportations and ordering men returned to the United States.

“As this opinion will detail, the Court finally determines that the actions of the government that day demonstrate a deliberate contempt for its order,” he wrote.

Boasberg noted that he had given the Trump administration “amply the opportunity to rectify or explain their actions” but “none of their answers was satisfactory”.

While the Supreme Court finally canceled his court order, judge Boasberg concluded that the Trump administration still held the order in the three weeks, it was indeed, even if the order suffered from a “legal defect”.

“The Constitution does not tolerate the voluntary disobedience of judicial orders – in particular by the officials of a branch of coordinates who were sworn in to maintain it. To allow these officials to” freely cancel the judgments of the United States “judgments” would not only “destroy the rights acquired under these judgments”. “

Boasberg gave the Trump administration a deadline for one week to file “a declaration explaining the measures they have taken and will take to do so”.

The path to “purge” the potential conclusion of contempt, said Boasberg, would be to obey his initial order.

“The most obvious way for the defendants to do so here is to assert the custody of the people who have been returned to the TRO violation on a court level so that they can take advantage of their right to challenge their derirability by a habeas procedure,” wrote Boasberg, referring to the temporary restriction order he has rendered.

“Under the terms of the TRO, the government would not need to release any of these people, and it would not need to transport them to the fatherland. The court will also give defendants the opportunity to propose other methods of conformity, that the court will assess.”

If the Trump administration does not wish to purge the conclusion of Boasberg’s contempt, the judge said that he “will identify individuals responsible for the abuse by determining who” specific act or omission “caused non-compliance”.

Boasberg said he would begin by demanding government statements, and if they turn out to be unsatisfactory, he “will carry out hearings with live testimonies, or to deposits by applicants”.

As a last potential step, Boasberg raised the prospect of appointing an independent lawyer to continue the government for its contempt.

“The next step would be for the court, in accordance with the federal rules of criminal procedure, to request that contempt be prosecuted by a lawyer for the government,” wrote Boasberg.

If the government “decreases” or “the interest of justice requires it”, the court “will name another lawyer to continue contempt,” he wrote.