The Trump Administration’s Legal Showdown Over Deportation Flights

A Federal Judge’s Ruling and the Trump Administration’s Response

In a dramatic legal showdown, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration could not use an obscure 18th-century law to deport individuals without a hearing. The law in question, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, was invoked by President Trump in an executive order targeting alleged members of a criminal gang called Tren de Aragua. The order claimed the group was carrying out an "invasion" of the United States. Despite the judge’s clear directive, the administration defied the order, sending more than 200 migrants, including alleged gang members, to El Salvador on three separate flights over the weekend. The judge had explicitly instructed that any planes already in the air should turn back, but none of them complied.

Timeline of Events: A Step-by-Step Breakdown

The sequence of events unfolded rapidly, with the Trump administration acting swiftly to execute the deportations. On Friday, March 14, President Trump signed the executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act. The administration targeted over 200 individuals for deportation, with more than half being selected under the authority of the executive order. The following day, Saturday, March 15, the administration formally announced the order, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward to file a lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelan men in immigration custody. While the administration delayed the deportation of the five men named in the lawsuit, it proceeded with the deportation flights for others.

At 5:26 p.m. on Saturday, the first deportation flight, GlobalX Flight 6143, departed from Harlingen, Texas. A second flight, GlobalX Flight 6145, took off from the same location at 5:44 p.m. Around 6:48 p.m., before the planes reached El Salvador, Judge James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington verbally ordered the government to turn around any planes carrying individuals being deported under the executive order. Despite this, none of the planes turned back. The first plane was over Mexico, the second was over the Gulf of Mexico, and the third had not yet taken off. At 7:26 p.m., the judge’s written order was posted online, but it did not include the specific instruction to turn the planes around. By that time, the first plane was over Honduras, the second was over Mexico, and the third was still on the ground in Texas.

The third flight, GlobalX Flight 6122, departed from Harlingen at 7:36 p.m., after the written order was posted. Honduran officials later confirmed that all three planes landed at the Soto Cano air base, where a U.S. military task force is stationed. After several hours, the planes continued on to El Salvador. The first plane arrived in San Salvador at 12:10 a.m. on March 16, followed by the second at 12:18 a.m. and the third at 1:08 a.m.

The Trump Administration’s Defense: A Narrow Interpretation of the Judge’s Order

During a court hearing on Monday, March 17, Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli argued that the Trump administration had not defied the judge’s order. Kambli contended that the judge’s decision was not complete until it was codified in written form and that the written version did not include the specific instruction to turn the planes around. He also argued that the cases of the individuals on the third flight were not covered by the judge’s order. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed this reasoning, stating that the administration followed only the written order, which was issued at 7:26 p.m., and not the verbal order given earlier at 6:48 p.m.

Leavitt emphasized that all flights subject to the written order departed U.S. soil before the order was posted online. She also questioned the legal weight of a verbal order compared to a written one, suggesting that this was a matter for the courts to decide. However, she did not address the third flight, which took off after the written order was issued. The Trump administration maintained that the third flight was carrying deportees who were not covered by the judge’s order.

The Broader Implications: A Clash of Powers and the Rule of Law

The case has sparked significant debate about the rule of law and the limits of presidential power. The Trump administration’s decision to proceed with the deportations despite the judge’s verbal order raises concerns about its willingness to comply with court directives. Judge Boasberg appeared skeptical of the administration’s arguments during the hearing, calling the distinction between verbal and written orders “a heckuva stretch.” He ordered the Trump administration to provide more detailed answers to his questions by noon on Tuesday, including a sworn declaration that no one on the third flight was covered by his order.

The administration’s actions have also drawn criticism from legal experts and advocacy groups, who argue that the use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context is a misuse of a law intended for wartime emergencies. The fact that the administration defied a court order adds another layer of complexity to the case, raising questions about the separation of powers and the judiciary’s ability to hold the executive branch accountable.

Reactions and the Ongoing Controversy

Reactions to the situation have been polarized. El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele seemed to mock the judge’s order on social media, posting “Oopsie … Too late” alongside a headline about the judge’s ruling. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also promoted Bukele’s post. On the other side of the debate, critics have accused the Trump administration of disregarding the rule of law and undermining the authority of the judiciary.

Thomas D. Homan, Trump’s border czar, defended the administration’s actions, stating, “I don’t care what the judges think,” and describing the deported individuals as “terrorists” and “significant public safety threats.” However, this characterization has been disputed by immigrant rights groups, who argue that many of those deported were not given a fair hearing or opportunity to challenge their removal.

As the legal battle continues, the case serves as a poignant reminder of the ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, as well as the broader debate over immigration policy and national security. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the balance of power in the U.S. government and the rights of migrants facing deportation.