Judge Upholds Ruling to Prevent Trump from Employing Wartime Powers for Deportations
The fresh ruling was issued just hours prior to a crucial appeals-court confrontation regarding the matter.
TroibNews 
A federal judge confirmed on Monday a decision that prevents President Donald Trump from invoking wartime powers to expedite the deportation of suspected gang members.
This ruling from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg arrived just hours before a significant court session with the federal appeals court regarding Trump’s deportation powers.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was set to hear arguments on Monday afternoon concerning the Trump administration's bid to lift a restraining order established by Boasberg on March 15. This order prohibits deportations under a proclamation made by Trump that invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 targeting members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.
In a detailed 37-page opinion, Boasberg dismissed the administration's appeal to lift the restraining order. He noted that legal precedents clearly indicate that even if Trump’s application of the historic statute is legitimate, individuals affected by it must have the chance to contest their deportation by providing evidence showing they are not affiliated with a gang.
“Summary deportation following close on the heels of the Government’s informing an alien that he is subject to the Proclamation — without giving him the opportunity to consider whether to voluntarily self-deport or challenge the basis for the order — is unlawful,” Boasberg asserted, having been appointed by President Barack Obama.
As the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, Boasberg has faced intense criticism from Trump and his supporters in recent days, prompting calls for his impeachment.
This case represents a crucial examination not only of Trump's presidential powers but also of the administration's compliance with judicial orders. During an emergency hearing on March 15, Boasberg instructed the Justice Department to ensure that any deportation flights en route should turn back and return to the U.S. However, the flights continued and delivered over 200 deportees to El Salvador in the night. Those individuals were then handed over to El Salvadoran authorities to be held in a notorious detention center funded by the U.S.
Boasberg has committed to investigating whether the administration willfully disregarded his directive. The Justice Department claimed in court last week that it had not violated any order. In Monday's opinion, Boasberg refrained from addressing that specific issue but noted the rapid pace at which Trump officials pursued the deportations earlier this month “implied a desire to circumvent judicial review.”
Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and White House deportation czar Tom Homan have recently stated that the suspected gang members posed significant risks to Americans, although the administration has acknowledged in court documents that some of those deported had no criminal records.
“This is an out of control judge — a federal judge trying to control our entire foreign policy,” Bondi said on Fox Business Channel Sunday. “He’s trying to ask us about national security information which he is absolutely not entitled to. … It’s basic public safety. Get these people out of our country as fast as we can.”
In his ruling on Monday, Boasberg emphasized that he had not ordered the release of anyone onto the streets of the U.S. The class-action lawsuit he presided over aims only to prevent the proclamation from being utilized for deportations.
The judge clarified that his orders “impose no restriction on the Government’s apprehending alleged members of Tren de Aragua under the contested authority of the Proclamation, nor does it require that any individual — dangerous or otherwise — be released from custody.”
Citing numerous cases from both world wars, Boasberg highlighted instances in which individuals claimed they were incorrectly labeled as alien enemies, forcing judges to review those claims.
“These cases establish conclusively that courts can determine an individual’s alien-enemy status — and are obligated to do so when asked,” Boasberg stated.
Additionally, Boasberg addressed the “parlous” conditions at the anti-terrorism facility in El Salvador where the deportees were sent. He indicated that the administration may have breached an international treaty ratified by the Senate in 1990 — the Convention Against Torture — by deporting individuals without allowing them to contest the possibility of torture upon their expulsion to El Salvador.
“The evidence at this point shows a likelihood of potential torture should Plaintiffs be removed to El Salvador and incarcerated there,” Boasberg wrote.
Although the Trump administration has contended that courts should defer to Trump’s interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, Boasberg referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling — supported by many conservatives — affirming that it is the courts, not the executive branch, that should interpret federal law.
Boasberg remarked that this implies his court, or another court, will inevitably need to determine whether a gang can be considered a foreign country or an extension of one, and whether having its members present in the U.S. constitutes a “predatory invasion” or “incursion” under the Alien Enemies Act.
Anna Muller for TROIB News
This ruling from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg arrived just hours before a significant court session with the federal appeals court regarding Trump’s deportation powers.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was set to hear arguments on Monday afternoon concerning the Trump administration's bid to lift a restraining order established by Boasberg on March 15. This order prohibits deportations under a proclamation made by Trump that invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 targeting members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.
In a detailed 37-page opinion, Boasberg dismissed the administration's appeal to lift the restraining order. He noted that legal precedents clearly indicate that even if Trump’s application of the historic statute is legitimate, individuals affected by it must have the chance to contest their deportation by providing evidence showing they are not affiliated with a gang.
“Summary deportation following close on the heels of the Government’s informing an alien that he is subject to the Proclamation — without giving him the opportunity to consider whether to voluntarily self-deport or challenge the basis for the order — is unlawful,” Boasberg asserted, having been appointed by President Barack Obama.
As the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, Boasberg has faced intense criticism from Trump and his supporters in recent days, prompting calls for his impeachment.
This case represents a crucial examination not only of Trump's presidential powers but also of the administration's compliance with judicial orders. During an emergency hearing on March 15, Boasberg instructed the Justice Department to ensure that any deportation flights en route should turn back and return to the U.S. However, the flights continued and delivered over 200 deportees to El Salvador in the night. Those individuals were then handed over to El Salvadoran authorities to be held in a notorious detention center funded by the U.S.
Boasberg has committed to investigating whether the administration willfully disregarded his directive. The Justice Department claimed in court last week that it had not violated any order. In Monday's opinion, Boasberg refrained from addressing that specific issue but noted the rapid pace at which Trump officials pursued the deportations earlier this month “implied a desire to circumvent judicial review.”
Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and White House deportation czar Tom Homan have recently stated that the suspected gang members posed significant risks to Americans, although the administration has acknowledged in court documents that some of those deported had no criminal records.
“This is an out of control judge — a federal judge trying to control our entire foreign policy,” Bondi said on Fox Business Channel Sunday. “He’s trying to ask us about national security information which he is absolutely not entitled to. … It’s basic public safety. Get these people out of our country as fast as we can.”
In his ruling on Monday, Boasberg emphasized that he had not ordered the release of anyone onto the streets of the U.S. The class-action lawsuit he presided over aims only to prevent the proclamation from being utilized for deportations.
The judge clarified that his orders “impose no restriction on the Government’s apprehending alleged members of Tren de Aragua under the contested authority of the Proclamation, nor does it require that any individual — dangerous or otherwise — be released from custody.”
Citing numerous cases from both world wars, Boasberg highlighted instances in which individuals claimed they were incorrectly labeled as alien enemies, forcing judges to review those claims.
“These cases establish conclusively that courts can determine an individual’s alien-enemy status — and are obligated to do so when asked,” Boasberg stated.
Additionally, Boasberg addressed the “parlous” conditions at the anti-terrorism facility in El Salvador where the deportees were sent. He indicated that the administration may have breached an international treaty ratified by the Senate in 1990 — the Convention Against Torture — by deporting individuals without allowing them to contest the possibility of torture upon their expulsion to El Salvador.
“The evidence at this point shows a likelihood of potential torture should Plaintiffs be removed to El Salvador and incarcerated there,” Boasberg wrote.
Although the Trump administration has contended that courts should defer to Trump’s interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, Boasberg referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling — supported by many conservatives — affirming that it is the courts, not the executive branch, that should interpret federal law.
Boasberg remarked that this implies his court, or another court, will inevitably need to determine whether a gang can be considered a foreign country or an extension of one, and whether having its members present in the U.S. constitutes a “predatory invasion” or “incursion” under the Alien Enemies Act.
Anna Muller for TROIB News
