A federal judge sharply questioned a Justice Department lawyer about whether the Trump administration deliberately ignored a court order blocking the deportation of migrants to El Salvador. The judge asked, “You felt you could disregard it?” after the lawyer argued the White House was not obligated to comply because the directive had been given orally rather than in writing.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg pressed the DOJ representative, who claimed that since the order was not in writing, it was not enforceable. “I memorialize it in shorthand, but you’re saying that you felt you could disregard it because it wasn’t in the written order?” Boasberg asked. The DOJ lawyer maintained that the administration believed there was no order given because only written directives carry legal weight.
The case revolves around allegations that the administration violated a judge’s order that temporarily halted the deportation of more than 100 individuals. The government argued it had complied with the written order but had not followed the oral directive issued hours earlier. The administration sought to remove Boasberg from the case, arguing that making DOJ lawyers defend their actions in an open hearing was inappropriate.
During the proceedings, the DOJ lawyer repeatedly declined to answer questions about the deportations, citing “national security concerns” without providing specific reasons. When pressed on why he could not disclose details, he admitted he did not know. “Those are operational issues, and I am not at liberty to provide or authorized to provide any information on how many planes left,” he said. The lawyer did confirm that no flights departed after the written order was issued but could not clarify whether flights had left before that.
Boasberg expressed disbelief at the lack of transparency, laughing as he questioned the DOJ lawyer. “So you’re saying you can’t mention them publicly?” he asked. The lawyer confirmed that he was not authorized to disclose details, even to the judge. “That is the only information that I’m authorized to give based on national security concerns, diplomatic concerns, and that is all I can provide.”
The controversy began with a lawsuit filed on behalf of Venezuelan individuals seeking to block the administration’s use of an obscure legal provision to deport them. Boasberg granted the request, barring the government from invoking the measure for 14 days. At a Saturday hearing, DOJ attorneys disclosed that two planes had already left for Honduras and El Salvador.
Boasberg issued an oral order around 6:45 p.m. on Saturday, instructing the government to turn around any planes carrying individuals being deported under the measure. However, the brief written order that followed at 7:25 p.m. did not contain the same directive. The administration allowed the flights to continue, transferring the individuals into foreign custody.
DOJ officials argued they acted in good faith, following proper protocol given the fast-moving nature of the case. “This is a fast-moving case where there’s a lot of operational, national security, and foreign relations (info) at risk,” the DOJ lawyer stated. The administration believed it was proceeding correctly, especially since the court had indicated it would issue a written order.
Boasberg was unconvinced, directing the DOJ to submit sworn declarations explaining exactly what transpired, including a timeline and reasons for withholding information. Before concluding the hearing, he quipped, “I will memorialize it in a written order since apparently my verbal orders don’t seem to carry much weight.”
