The US President Donald Trump comes to the presentation of the Commander-in-Chief-Trophy to the US Marine Midshipmen Football Team at the United States Naval Academy in the White House in Washington, DC, USA, April 15, 2025.
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters
A federal judge found a probable reason to keep the Trump administration in criminal contempt because he had ignored his order under the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a notorious El Salvador prison.
“Ultimately, the court found that the government's actions show an intentional disregard for his order on this day, and the court is sufficient to conclude that there is a probable reason to find the government in criminal contempt,” judge James Boasberg wrote in a court mood on Wednesday.
“The Court of Justice does not draw such a conclusion easily or hastily; in fact, the accused has had enough opportunity to correct or explain their actions,” wrote Boasberg. “None of their answers was satisfactory.”
Boasberg gave the administration a week to explain an explanation in which the plan for “cleaning” was explained.
This means “voluntarily to follow the court order” by giving the deported people the opportunity to question their distance through appropriate legal proceedings, he wrote.
However, if the government decides not to take this step, said Boasberg, instead, it must submit an explanation in which the person or persons are identified who have “made the decision not to stop the transfer of the Venezolans on March 15 and 16 despite the judge's command”.
If the explanations are “unsatisfactory”, the judge said that he would order jury's wanred testimonies or deposits by the plaintiffs' lawyers. He would then ask the Ministry of Justice to pursue contempt. If the DOJ rejects or says that it cannot, Boasberg will appoint another lawyer to take over the law enforcement.
The White House plans to search for “immediate appeal”, the communication director Steven Cheung wrote to X.
“The president is 100% obliged to ensure that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants do not pose a threat to Americans and their communities across the country,” Cheung wrote.
The lawyer of the American Civil Liberties Union, Lee learned, the leading lawyer of the plaintiffs, said in a statement to NBC News that Boasberg was “rightly on the return of the people who were sent to the notorious Salvadoran prison without proper procedures, and that remains our concern.”
The opinion of Boasberg is the recent legal development based on the efforts of the Trump government to suspend mass shifts from immigrants without papers.
Last month, Trump from 1798 called for a law known as Alien Enemies Act to deport a group of Venezuelans who are supposed to be members of the gang tren de Aragua.
Five of them who deny all of them to be gang members quickly submitted a lawsuit in which they wanted to block their distance from the USA
Read more CNBC policy reporting
At a hearing, Boasberg soon learned that flights with the Venezuelans may have already decreased, although the government's lawyers did not share any details at that time. The judge then gave a temporary injunction that blocked the distances and told the government that they had to comply with them – even if this meant turning the aircraft in the air.
“Despite the written order of the court and the oral command, which was necessary to comply with regulations, the government did not stop the ongoing distance process,” said Boasberg in the submission on Wednesday.
The Trump administration appealed against the order to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 5: 4 judgment at the beginning of this month, the High Court part of the Trump administration: It enabled the civil servants to use the law on the extraterrestrial enemies for deportations, but demanded that the Venezolans have the opportunity to bring their cases to court.
Boasberg wrote that this decision “effectively said that the government's constitution is prohibited from doing exactly what it did on this Saturday when she secretly invited people to airplanes, many of them in the dark to tear them away before they were able to appoint their due legal process law.”
Comments are closed.