this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
316 points (99.7% liked)

News

27476 readers
4264 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A Justice Department lawyer refused to answer any detailed questions about the deportation flights to El Salvador, arguing that President Trump had broad authority to remove immigrants from the United States with little to no due process under an obscure wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The tense back-and-forth in court between the judge, James E. Boasberg, and the Justice Department lawyer, Abhishek Kambli, left open the possibility of further conflict down the road. Judge Boasberg directed Mr. Kambli to certify in writing by noon on Tuesday — under seal if needed — that no immigrants were removed after his written order went into effect, a piece of information that will be crucial as the judge seeks to determine whether the Trump administration flouted his authority.

...

As the hearing in Washington began, Judge Boasberg said he did not intend to rule on the merits on whether the Trump administration was correct in its decision to deport the immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act. Ultimately, the judge will have to decide whether the administration was right in removing people under the statute, which allows the government wide discretion to summarily deport noncitizens during wartime and if there is an invasion of U.S. territory.

For now, Judge Boasberg was concerned with a narrower issue: He wanted to figure out the timeline of the flights to El Salvador to determine whether they were in violation of his ruling.

But Mr. Kambli repeatedly refused to say anything about the flights, citing “national security.” He simply reiterated the government’s position that it had done nothing to violate Judge Boasberg’s order.

Even before the hearing began, Justice Department officials tried to have it canceled, writing to Judge Boasberg in the late afternoon to tell him there was no point in coming to court since they did not intend to provide him with any additional information about the deportation flights.

In an even more astonishing move, the department sent a letter to the federal appeals court sitting over Judge Boasberg, asking it to remove him from the proceedings entirely by citing what it described as his “highly unusual and improper procedures” in handling the case.

Archived at https://archive.is/1fq4M

Related BBC article with a helpful timeline

  • 17:25 EDT: A first flight believed to be carrying deportees leaves Texas, according to data from tracking site Flightradar24. Take off happens while a hearing held by Judge Boasberg is paused. Earlier that afternoon, the White House said Trump was invoking the Alien Enemies Act
  • 17:44 EDT: A second flight believed to be carrying deportees leaves Texas, according to Flightradar24
  • 18:05 EDT: Boasberg's hearing resumes
  • 18:46 EDT: During the hearing, Boasberg verbally orders the government to turn around the two planes if they are carrying non-citizens, saying: "any plane containing these folks - because it's going to take off or it's in the air - needs to be returned to the United States... This is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately."
  • 19:26 EDT: Boasberg issues his written ruling which includes a temporary restraining order on any further flights
  • 19:36 EDT: A third flight believed to be carrying deportees leaves Texas, according to Flightradar24

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250318024104/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crrdp9jdpyko

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 176 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Throw them in jail for contempt of the court. Why are we so spineless?

[–] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 85 points 1 day ago

Start the process to have those attorneys disbarred. We The People want to see consequences for trying to bend and break the rule of law.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 45 points 1 day ago

I saw the headline, my brain went "so he's being held in contempt, as would any other person refusing to answer a question, right?"

Of course, I already knew the answer.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

They need to clear out some space to house

SO MANY DOJ LAWYERS ROTTING IN JAIL FOR CONTEMPT.

And then we talk disbarment.

If you ever try this in your own trial you'll be held in contempt of court and it's gonna suck a lot for you.
When it's fascists doing it, crickets.
Trump is enabled by all the other branches whenever they fold or use kid's gloves.

[–] deadkennedy@lemm.ee 76 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 37 points 1 day ago

~~him~~ them

[–] Sirus@lemm.ee 18 points 1 day ago

Yep then disbar him

[–] ctkatz@lemmy.ml 4 points 21 hours ago

when the executive branch ignores the judicial branch this is the inevitable outcome.

it no longer matters if the executive branch can just ignore the judiciary. the only question is what mechanism does the judiciary have to enforce it's order since the federal marshals are all part of the executive branch?

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 19 points 1 day ago

Court issues lawful order. Participant defies order. Participant is thrown in lockup for contempt. Trump throws a fit claiming it's unfair. Media and others debate if TrumpCo needs to follow court orders...

You know, at least Nixon had the good grace to resign rather than being cast out, but we've gotten to a point where there's a major portion of the population who will actively defend blatantly wrong actions just because their camp is the one doing it.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Come on, Judge, you know what this is, it's uh... Shmontempt of Schmourt? No, that's not it

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, the strategy of invoking the court's authority to demand the administration submit a written statement formally declaring whether or not they have defied the court's authority seems like it has a bit of a weak point in it

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yeah. All they're doing is highlighting their lack of action at that point.

If you're not going to do anything about it, say so. You could at least just end the trial and let someone else take over the mantle of action.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Eh, I wouldn't go quite that far, the judge may still be working towards doing the right thing here, I just think he's being more cautious and going slower than he needs to.

If he gets this statement and says "OK, good, now that you have committed to one particular story in writing, here's how the facts and evidence show that story to be a lie and why I must find you in contempt of court and take appropriate actions" he's doing his job (albeit I would say overly meticulously, it should be obvious from the already established record they're acting with contempt of court).

On the other hand, if he gets this statement and says "Well, if you promise this is the truth then I guess it is" then, yeah, this is all pointless bullshit.

e; Well, we've got our statement

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 9 points 1 day ago

Why would they commit to a story in writing? He asked them for the story directly, and they told him to go fuck himself in open court. Why would responding to that by then asking them to write something down and giving them a later deadline get a different result?

Even before the hearing began, Justice Department officials tried to have it canceled, writing to Judge Boasberg in the late afternoon to tell him there was no point in coming to court since they did not intend to provide him with any additional information about the deportation flights.

It's hard to come up with a clearer invitation to leave the courtroom in cuffs, if you're not a special type of person who's above the law. The judge's job is to remind people that they're not above the law, if they ever do this type of stuff, and at that he egregiously failed.

[–] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

It's the concept of a Constitution, not an actual one.