The Trump administration told a federal judge on Monday night that it would not reveal any other information about two Venezuelan immigrants that he sent to El Salvador this month despite the court’s order to return the planes, announcing that doing this will endanger the state’s secrets.
The move sharply rose to the increasing conflict between the administration and the judge – and therefore, the federal judiciary – in the event that legal experts are afraid to accelerate a constitutional crisis.
For nearly 10 days, Judge James E. Boasberg from the Federal District Court in Washington is trying to obtain the Trump administration to give him information about the two flights in an attempt to determine whether officials allowed them to continue in Salvador in violation of his order to return to the United States.
But in the Patent Challenge Law, the Ministry of Justice, Judge Boasberg, told him that giving him any other information about flights – which the Trump administration was confirmed by members of the Venezuelan Street gang called Tren de Aragua – “undermines or hinders the control of future tires.”
“The court has all the facts it needs to address compliance cases before it,” the administration wrote in the department. file. “More interference in the executive branch would provide serious and completely unjustified damage regarding diplomatic and national security concerns that the court lacks efficiency to address it.”
The privilege of the state secrets is a legal doctrine that can allow the executive authority to prevent the use of evidence in the court – and sometimes the entire lawsuits are closed – when it says that the litigation of these matters in the open court will risk disclosing information that may harm national security.
However, the executive branch usually provides a detailed description of the judge’s sensitive evidence to show why he is very sensitive to discussion in the open court. The Trump administration’s move is partially unusual because it refuses to provide information to judgment on boasberg – a former judge who heads the National Security Control Court in the country – even in particular and in a safe facility to deal with the classified information.
In fact, the administration has not even demanded that the information was categorized.
Instead, I submitted data from Marco Rubio and Christie’s callsThe state and internal security secretaries, saying that the participation of information with the court would put national security and foreign policy, including by making foreign partners less vulnerable to the Trump administration to maintain secret negotiations and secret operational details, and taste general speculation about the matter.
The response of the Ministry of Justice to the judge Boasberg came on the same day to confirm his initial matter that prevents the Trump administration from using a time in wartime, the law of foreign enemies, to deport dozens of Venezuelan immigrants, which are considered members of the Trin de Aragoa.
judge to request He said that the bloc must remain in order for immigrants the opportunity to challenge the accusations they belong to the gang before being transferred outside the country to prison in El Salvador.
Also on Monday, the Federal Appeal Court in Washington held a two -hour hearing on the Trump administration’s request to cancel Judge Pomsberg’s Basic Order, where he dealt with many cases itself.
The three judges committee did not issue an immediate ruling. However, during the interrogation, the lawyer of the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that if the court reflects the order of the judge in Spear, the administration can resume the transfer of people immediately to Al -Salvadouri prison.
From the moment Judge Bomsberg, the chief judge of the Federal Provincial Court in Washington, entered his original order, stopping deportations on March 15, Mr. Trump and his allies accused him of bypassing his authority by intrusively on the president’s adherence to foreign affairs.
The question in the heart of the issue is equally turned into the question of whether Mr. Trump himself has overcome the ignorance of the limits stipulated in the text of the law of foreign enemies and in the constitution for when and how the deportation operations can occur in wartime.
The law, which was passed in 1798, gives government freedom on a large scale during the invasion or wartime to collect the issues of a “hostile nation” over the age of 14 years and remove it from the country without a few or non -possibility.
The administration has repeatedly claimed that the relevant Venezuelan immigrants are members of the Trine de Aragua and should be considered subjects of an enemy nation because Mr. Trump said they were behaving towards the Venezuelan government.
The White House also insisted that the arrival of dozens of gang members to the United States is an invasion or a “predatory penetration” under the law, which could push the authorities of the president’s deportation in wartime even without a declared war.
Venezuelan immigrant attorneys confirmed that the law cannot be used against the members of Trin de Aragoa because the gang is not a government and that its activities do not rise to the level of invasion. It is worth noting that the American intelligence community evaluated last month and concluded that the gang is not under the control of the Venezuelan government, contrary to what Mr. Trump has already claimed.
Lawyers also asked whether many immigrants accused by the Trump administration of belonging to Treen de Aragoa are actually members of the gang. They have argued that the Venezuelan should be able to challenge these decisions before leaving the country.
When Judge Boasberg initially stopped flights, he said that his decision was based on both the lack of legal procedures received by immigrants and a greater issue about whether Mr. Trump’s use of foreign enemies is really suitable for the situation.
But in maintaining the restriction order in place, the judge wrote that he relied only on the issue of due legal procedures. He added that he does not need to “solve the thorny issue on whether the judiciary has an evaluation authority” claiming Mr. Trump that the law of foreign enemies can be used legally against Treen de Aragua as a group.
During the hearing on Monday before the Court of Appeal Committee, two judges seemed to agree that the migrants whom the government wants to remove under the law could go to the court to challenge whether they were actually members of Tren de Aragua.
But it was not clear how these challenges might look.
One of the judges, Patricia A. Melit, one of the Democratic appointed, to doubts about the government’s position that the committee should remain the order to restrict the judge Pasperg.
She broke out the lawyer for the Ministry of Justice, which indicates that if it is possible to deport the Venezuelan without the due legal procedures, any person – among them – can be announced by the threat of national security and his transfer outside the country. Judge Melit pointed out that even the German citizens who were arrested under the law of foreign enemies during the Second World War, had the opportunity to controversy in the hearings that the law did not apply to them.
She said: “The Nazis got a better treatment under the law of foreign enemies.”
The second judge agreed, Justin R. Walker, one of the Republican appointed, that immigrants can challenge them if they were covered by calling Mr. Trump to the War Time Law, but he seemed to be skeptical to allow the judge Pasperj to stay in his place for technical reasons.
He repeatedly suggested that if immigrants want to challenge their removal, they must do this not in Washington, but in the places where they are being held, such as Texas.
The third judge in the committee, Karen L. Henderson, who is a fans, was almost said almost in the session.
The concession of the Ministry of Justice for the privilege of the state’s secrets was just its last effort to the attempts of Judge Stonnol Pasperg to understand whether the government had violated his matter.
Last week, a few hours before a hearing they had to discuss the trip, the department’s lawyers moved to cancel the procedure. On the same day, they took a bolder step in an attempt to remove Judge Boasberg from the case.
But the protest with the distinction of the state’s secrets in this context was a new level of aggression.
The Supreme Court first realized the privilege of the state secrets in Decision 1953 This agreed to block information whenever there is a “reasonable danger” to expose information that should not be revealed for national security reasons.
After the Bush administration repeatedly acquired the privilege of the state’s secrets to prevent lawsuits on issues such as torture and eavesdropping on phone calls, the Obama Ministry of Justice imposed new borders on power.
the policy The administration called for a refusal to use concession if officials decide to motivate this is to “hide law violations, incompetence, or administrative error”, “prevent embarrassment” or prevent information “that is not expected to be released reasonably to cause great harm to national security.”
Public Prosecutor Pam Bondi Tell the judge Pasperg in a file It was satisfied that the new Trump administration’s protest of this privilege was “supported and sufficient program.”