The Trump administration is on a collision course with the court after escalating its fight over whether or not its order was denied.
On March 15, the administration rejected an oral order from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, halting a Venezuelan immigrant flight to a Salvadoran prison.
Since then, they have been attacked by judges, both inside and outside the courtroom, reducing Boasberg’s authority over this issue and repeatedly refusing to provide requested information in court. President Trump and Congressional allies are challenging Boasberg’s ruling on the flight, suggesting he is bluffing.
The week began with a widespread attack on Boasberg’s ruling on the flight, but Trump concluded by suspending his agenda and denouncing the entire concept of a national injunction to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview with NBC’s “Reports” that he agreed with those who said the US was in a constitutional crisis.
“Look, Donald Trump is a lawless, angry man. He thinks he should be the king,” Schumer said. “He believes he should do whatever he wants to do, regardless of the law, and the judge should just listen to him.”
“Ignoring the court orders is what’s putting our democracy at risk, and we have to do everything to fight back on that,” he added.
Many Trump officials have suggested that federal benches cannot interfere with Trump’s foreign policy, even when considering immigration and other major national security issues.
Stephen Miller, the President’s vice-chief of staff, at the heart of the administration’s radical push to crack down on immigration and strengthen deportation, was spared in a television appearance, claiming that Trump telegraphed his plans on the campaign trail.
“The American people voted for this behavior to happen. It happened, it happened, it happened, it happened, it continues to happen,” Miller said. “And the idea that a single district court judge has the authority to direct them as if they were president, moving planes around the world, is the most outrageous thing I have seen from a district court judge in my lifetime, but, frankly, goes back to multiple lifetimes.”
Trump and some of his aides have not stepped back from trolling critics, returning to the 2024 campaign. They recently leaned towards it, as the administration appears to be embracing the controversy over the incident and Boasberg’s orders.
“The president always follows the law, but this judge was too late. We played a little game of “Can you catch me?”
In another media appearance, Fields suggested that Boasberg’s ruling pushes the nation closer to a constitutional crisis, reflecting on a series of attacks that have become common among wary watchdogs and Democrats.
The White House posted a video to its social media account this week featuring footage of immigrants in handcuffs being placed on planes after being taken by border patrols. The video was set to a song called “Closing Time” by the band Semisonic.
“I think it sums up our immigration policy quite well. We don’t have to go home, but we can’t stay here,” spokesperson Caroline Leavitt, citing the song.
Border Chief Tom Homan told Fox News that the administration has not stopped its deportation efforts and “doesn’t care what the judges think.”
Trump said he would not openly ignore the court’s orders in multiple ways, saying his administration would appeal the ruling it opposed.
But the administration’s fighting approach has drawn criticism from legal groups and Democrats who view Trump and his aides as seizing power and undermining the judiciary.
“For over 200 years, our legal system has given individuals the right to contest judicial decisions and sue them if they are parties in the suffering,” the American Bar Association said in a statement this week.
“It was never acceptable to threaten to personally target judges or to rule out certain methods of judges. Such efforts aim to intimidate judges and courts and weaken public trust and trust in the judicial system.”
Roerts himself had the same argument.
“For over two centuries, it has been established that each is not an appropriate response to differences in opinion over judicial decisions. For that purpose, there is a normal appeal review process.”
Boasberg on Friday made it clear he intends to fight back against the Trump administration.
“The government is not grossly cooperative at this point, but we’ll get to the bottom of whether they violated my order, who ordered this, what the outcome will be,” Boasberg said at the hearing Friday.
This week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) repeatedly refused to share details with El Salvador, including flight plans that will help organize whether Boasberg announced it at 6:45 p.m. on March 15th, as well as written orders posted to the docket at 7:27 p.m. on the same day.
At a hearing Monday, DOJ lawyers repeatedly told Boasberg that they were “not allowed” to disclose more information about the flight.
Later, when asked to explain the legal basis behind their refusal, the DOJ wrote again, submitting “there is no justification to order additional information and it is inappropriate to do so.”
The DOJ was then instructed to provide flight information to Boasberg under seal, but Boasberg showed that they didn’t do that again, instead submitting an oath statement from a mid-level immigration officer that the Cabinet was debating whether to invoke the state’s secret privileges. This limits sharing with Boasberg, who previously processed highly sensitive classification information through his role as a foreign intelligence report monitoring law (FISA) court judge.
Boasberg said the response was “severely inadequate” and “avoided” the obligation to demonstrate a government that complies with previous court rulings.
Both verbal and written orders are binding, but the White House repeatedly argued that it was complying with Boasberg’s written instructions, while not referring to his verbal guidance.
“We are 100% sure we’ve adhered to,” Leavitt told reporters Thursday.
“And as I said from the podium, continuing on, all flights subject to the written order of the judge took off before the written order was pushed out in court.”
