Court Allows Government Additional Time to Disclose Information on Deportation Flights


The ongoing legal dispute between a federal judge and the Trump administration regarding the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants continues to unfold. The conflict centers around two flights arranged by the administration, which are being scrutinized under a wartime statute. Judge James E. Boasberg has ordered the Justice Department to respond to his demand for information about the flights by noon on Thursday, giving them an extension from an initial deadline of Wednesday.

Despite the extension, Judge Boasberg expressed skepticism towards the Justice Department's reasoning for the delay, suggesting that their arguments were unpersuasive. He has requested detailed information about the flights, including their departure times from the U.S. and landing times in El Salvador, emphasizing the need for an official account, despite similar information being available in public flight databases.

The judge’s inquiries aim to determine whether the Trump administration violated his previous order against the deportation of the immigrants involved, a claim the administration has denied. A third flight to El Salvador has been mentioned, but it is not a point of contention as the administration argues those deportations followed traditional immigration procedures, not the wartime law.

In addition to the request for time extension, the Justice Department has sought to evade providing detailed information about the flights by attempting to cancel a scheduled court hearing and calling for Judge Boasberg's removal from the case. The department’s language in court papers was notably confrontational, framing the judge's request for flight data as a trivial issue.

Furthermore, the Justice Department is contemplating the invocation of the state secrets privilege, which may permit them to withhold sensitive information from judicial scrutiny on national security grounds. Judge Boasberg cautioned that if the privilege is claimed, the department must furnish a justification for its necessity, as the court must assess the appropriateness of such a claim.





Previous Post Next Post