The Trump administration maintains that it did not violate a federal court order by refusing to turn around flights carrying over 200 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. These individuals had been deported under an 18th-century wartime power, without due process. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the court’s injunction did not require planes already outside U.S. airspace to return, as the deportation had been completed when the order was issued.
The government’s filing asserted that the injunction barred the removal of individuals but did not mandate reversing removals that had already occurred. It stated that any migrants on the flights had already left U.S. territory by the time the court’s order was issued, meaning their deportation was legally complete. The administration argued that no court had the power to compel the executive branch to return the migrants and that such an interpretation of the order would be unprecedented.
This position was reinforced when the administration invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent further disclosure of information regarding the deportation flights. Officials contended that revealing additional details could harm national security and foreign relations.
During an emergency hearing, the judge had issued an oral directive instructing the government to ensure that any flights carrying deported individuals be returned to the United States. However, the administration pointed to a later written order, which did not explicitly state that the flights had to turn back. They argued that since the planes had already departed U.S. airspace two hours before the order was given, the migrants had already been legally removed.
The filing further stated that the government did not direct any planes to return to the U.S. but emphasized that this decision was not equivalent to actively deporting individuals in violation of the court’s order. The administration maintained that the judge’s ruling did not apply to those who had already left the country.
Additionally, the administration asserted that even if the court intended to compel the return of the deported migrants, it lacked the authority to do so. The president, they argued, has broad independent power to decide on matters of national security, foreign relations, and military operations, including decisions about whether to bring individuals back into the country.
The judge overseeing the case expressed determination to investigate whether his order had been violated and to hold accountable those responsible. Meanwhile, a panel of appellate judges heard arguments on whether the order should be lifted. During the proceedings, one judge compared the treatment of the Venezuelan migrants unfavorably to that of Nazi prisoners during World War II, while another suggested that the case may have been improperly filed in Washington rather than Texas.
A key issue in the case is whether migrants detained under the Alien Enemies Act must be given an opportunity to challenge their classification under the law. The outcome may set a precedent for future applications of the act.
The controversy has also sparked calls for the judge’s impeachment, a demand that has drawn criticism. The chief justice weighed in, stating that impeachment should not be used as a means to contest judicial decisions. This judge is also overseeing a separate case involving alleged violations of federal law by officials who discussed military operations on a private messaging app.
