MUST WATCH!! VIDEO IN THE 1ST COMMENT
In a development that underscores the mounting tension between the Executive Branch and the Judiciary
The U.S. Department of Justice has sharply criticized U.S. District Judge James Boasberg for what it calls “digressive micromanagement” in a case involving deportation flights.
The dispute centers on flights that sent Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador over the weekend—a move the Trump administration defends as fully compliant with federal law.
This article provides a detailed look into the controversy, the specific demands made by the judge, the DOJ’s response—including
its consideration of invoking state secrets privilege—and the broader political fallout, which now includes impeachment efforts by a House Republican lawmaker.
This article provides a detailed look into the controversy, the specific demands made by the judge, the DOJ’s response—including its consideration of invoking state secrets privilege—and the broader political fallout, which now includes impeachment efforts by a House Republican lawmaker.
The Controversy Unfolds: Judge’s Order vs. DOJ’s Position
On Tuesday, Judge Boasberg ordered the Department of Justice to submit answers to five specific questions regarding the administration’s handling of deportation flights. The judge’s inquiry came after the DOJ insisted that the flights did not violate any existing
court orders. His order required detailed information including:The exact takeoff time and location from U.S. soil.
The time at which the plane left U.S. airspace.
The landing time and destination in the foreign country (including any intermediary stops).
The time when individuals, detained solely under the authority of the President’s Proclamation, were transferred out of U.S. custody.
The total number of people on board whose status was determined solely by the Proclamation.
These questions, intended to clarify the logistics of the flights, have been met by the DOJ as an excessive diversion from the core legal issues at hand. In a filing
co-signed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and other officials, the DOJ contended that the Court has spent disproportionate time chasing minute details about flight schedules rather than focusing on the central matter: whether the flights violated the court’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
The Court has now spent more time trying to ferret out information about the Government’s flight schedules and its international relations than it did investigating
the facts that justified certifying the class action,” the filing stated. The DOJ argues that the judge’s focus on minutiae has derailed the case, which was initially about the President’s authority to manage deportation under longstanding statutory and constitutional powers.
The DOJ’s Defense and Invocation of State Secrets Privilege
In its filing, the DOJ expressed deep concern that complying with the judge’s order could compromise sensitive national security interests. The department noted that disclosing specific flight details might implicate U.S. allies and
potentially hinder ongoing efforts to combat terrorism. “Disclosure of the information sought could implicate the affairs of United States allies and undermine our ability to conduct foreign affairs effectively,” the DOJ warned.
Moreover, the department is evaluating whether to invoke the state secrets privilege with respect to portions of the requested information.
This privilege, which allows the government to withhold details that could compromise national security, is being considered because the judge’s order demands a rapid turnaround—within 21 hours—that the DOJ deems insufficient for handling such sensitive matters
