Trump's words undermine DOJ's argument regarding men deported to El Salvador's CECOT
WASHINGTON — The words of President Donald Trump and members of his administration undermined the government's contention during a court hearing on Wednesday that the men deported from the country under the Alien Enemies Act and delivered to El Salvador were not in the constructive custody of the United States.
In a hearing on Wednesday evening, Chief U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg questioned a Justice Department attorney over whether Trump was telling the truth when he said that he could secure the release of Abrego Garcia from the CECOT facility in El Salvador.
Boasberg used the president's own words, as well as statements from Press Secretary Karoline Levitt and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, to chip away at the government's contention that those incarcerated at CECOT in El Salvador were not in the constructive custody of the United States.
Trump said last week that he 'could' have Garcia returned to the United States with a phone call, while Levitt said the United States was paying El Salvador 'approximately $6 million' to keep the men, and Noem said that CECOT was 'one of the tools in our tool kit' that the United States could use.
'Is the President not telling the truth, or could he secure the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia?' Boasberg asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Abhishek Kambli, who was representing the government on Wednesday.
'Was the president telling the truth,' when he said he could pick up the phone and secure the release of Garcia or not, Boasberg asked.
'That goes towards the president's belief about influence he has,' Kambli responded, saying that "influence does not equate to constructive custody."
Under questioning from Boasberg, Kambli said that a "grant" dated March 22 that was described as for law enforcement needs related to the 238 alleged Tren de Aragua members recently deported to El Salvador. Kambli confirmed 'grants were made' that 'can be used for detention of these individuals.'
Boasberg said the plaintiffs had 'a lot of facts in your favor' in arguing that the United States had what's called 'constructive custody' of the men — something the Trump administration has argued in and out of court they do not have. Boasberg questioned Kambli on whether the government would concede that transferring individuals to CECOT without due process would mean that the government had violated the rights of the deportees.
'I don't know if I would put it in those terms," Kambli replied.
Boasberg has ordered the Trump administration to provide sworn declarations from administration officials regarding the issue of who exactly has custody of these individuals at CECOT.
Boasberg has ordered lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward who brought the lawsuit to review that information, and to decide, by Monday, whether or not to request discovery — and if so, exactly what questions, depositions, and documents they are requesting. After that, Boasberg will decide exactly what to order the government to produce, if necessary.
The Supreme Court last month lifted Boasberg's order which temporarily blocked the administration from sending members of Tren de Aragua to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, but the Supreme Court didn't reach a decision on the merits of Trump's invocation of the act. Last week, a Trump-appointed judge became the first to strike down the administration's use of the act, which had previously only been deployed during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.
While the Trump administration proclaimed that they won the Supreme Court argument, Boasberg questioned Kambli about the decision, noting that the court had not reached the merits of the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg asked whether Kambli acknowledged that the Supreme Court didn't reach the arguments about the administration's use of the act itself, and Kambli conceded that the court "did not analyze that precise issue."
"I assume that's a yes," Boasberg replied.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump gets the OK to end protections for national monuments, from the Statue of Liberty to the Grand Canyon
President Donald Trump has the authority to abolish national monuments protected by his predecessors, the Justice Department recently said. In a legal document dated to May 27, the department overturned a nearly 90-year-old opinion that said presidents did not have that ability, saying that its conclusions were 'wrong' and 'can no longer be relied upon.' ' The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a president to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the act's protections; and such an alteration can have the effect of eliminating entirely the reservation of the parcel of land previously associated with a national monument,' the Office of Legal Counsel's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit wrote. ' The contrary conclusion of the Attorney General in Proposed Abolishment of Castle Pinckney National Monument, 39 Op. Att'y Gen. 185 (1938), was incorrect.' The document specifically refers to former President Joe Biden establishing California's Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands National Monuments. The monuments, that have particular significance to Native American tribes and extend over some 848,000 acres of land, barred oil and natural gas drilling and mining there. The Trump administration told The Washington Post in March that it has plans to eliminate them. In April, the paper reported that Interior Department Officials were studying whether to scale back at least six national monuments, and a person briefed on the matter said the aim was to free up land for drilling and mining. Biden established 10 new monuments during his tenure. 'America's energy infrastructure was on life-support when President Trump got into office; and in nearly six months, the administration has shocked this critical industry back into life, making good on another promise to the American people,' the White House's Harrison Fields, principal deputy press secretary, told The Independent in an emailed statement responding to question about the Justice Department's opinion. 'It's imperative that the Senate passes OBBB to completely end Biden's war on American energy, and will liberate our federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal, and mineral leasing.' The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Independent's request for comment on the matter. While this opinion does not overturn any national monument, it hints at future action. Trump has taken steps to shrink monuments in the past. During his first administration, he moved to slash Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments: the first such move of its kind in more than 50 years. Biden reversed Trump's decision before the courts could make a final ruling on the matter. Earlier this year, Trump opened the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine national monument to commercial fishing while leaving the monument in place. The Interior Department is weighing changes to monuments across the country as part of the push to 'restore American energy dominance.' The National Park Service alone manages more than 100 national monuments established under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Some are also co-managed by the U.S. and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Some of those include the Statue of Liberty, the Stonewall Inn, the Grand Canyon, Sequoia National Forest, and the Lincoln Memorial. While Congress must approve the designation of national parks, a national monument is designated by a president via the Antiquities Act. Around half of the nation's national parks were first designated monuments, and all except three presidents have used the act to protect areas both offshore and on land. Presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower, have also diminished monuments. Responding to the document, environmental advocate groups have asserted there might not be much legal standing and that moves to eliminate or shrink monuments would be less than popular. "There's no reason to think the OLC opinion should make much difference to the White House. National monuments have broad public and political support, and shrinking or revoking them will only damage the Trump Administration's popularity,' Aaron Paul, the staff attorney for the Grand Canyon Trust, told The Independent in an emailed statement. 'Besides, if the president tries to shrink or eliminate monuments, it would send the question to the courts, which is the real test of whether the OLC's views have any validity or not." 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she said.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
ABA calls Bondi's decision to curtail judicial nominee vetting 'disturbing'
June 11 (Reuters) - The American Bar Association called the U.S. Department of Justice's decision to curtail its ability to vet President Donald Trump's judicial nominees "deeply disturbing" in a letter, opens new tab to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi released late on Tuesday. ABA President William Bay said the nonpartisan lawyer organization was "surprised and disappointed" by the department's recent decision to restrict its access to judicial nominees and information about them for the first time in seven decades. "The changes the Justice Department is apparently imposing will likely result in less transparency in the process of confirming nominees to lifetime appointments on the federal bench and appear to be based on incorrect information," Bay wrote. He urged Bondi to reconsider, saying the ABA's past access to nominees helped U.S. senators receive important insights about them during the confirmation process and "helps bolster the public's trust and confidence in our federal courts." The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Starting in 1953 during Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower's tenure, the ABA through its 15-member Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has vetted judicial nominees before they were sent to the Senate, which must confirm them. Republicans have long claimed the organization is biased against conservatives. In 2001, Republican President George W. Bush ended the tradition of giving the ABA a first look at nominees. While Democratic President Barack Obama revived the practice, Trump ended it again in 2017 in his first term, and Democratic President Joe Biden did not revive the practice. The Justice Department's May 30 decision to cease directing nominees to fill out questionnaires from the ABA and provide waivers allowing it access to their bar and disciplinary records marked a further diminishment of the group's vetting role. In a May 29 letter to the ABA, Bondi contended that the ABA "no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations." During the first Trump administration, the ABA rated 10 of Trump's judicial nominees as "not qualified." He secured confirmation of 234 judicial nominees. Senate Democrats and Trump's critics say several of his 11 announced second-term judicial picks fall short of the ABA's typical standard that a nominee should have at least 12 years of experience in the practice of law. Among the young nominees to life-tenured positions on the bench who fall short of that metric is Whitney Hermandorfer, 37, who only graduated law school 10 years ago. She is nominated to join the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Bay, in his letter, said the ABA's Standing Committee does not advocate for nominees and had issued "Well Qualified" or "Qualified" ratings to no less than 96.9% of the nominees in each presidential administration during the last two decades, including during the first Trump administration. Read more: Justice Department curtails ABA role in vetting Trump's judicial nominees Trump nominates his former defense attorney Emil Bove to serve as appellate judge Trump readies to name 'fearless' conservative judges in second term
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump tells administrative judges to speed up dismissing arrest cases so they can deport faster
President Donald Trump 's administration has urged justices to speed up the dismissal of pending immigration cases so that federal agents can arrest their subjects, according to a report. This comes as part of an attempt to bolster the total number of undocumented migrants being held in detention. Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration has intensified in the last week, inspiring the protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Los Angeles that have since spread to other cities. The new tactic to increase the number of arrests was outlined in a memo from the Justice Department sent to immigration judges, which was seen by NBC News. The justices in question, who answer to the executive branch and are not part of the independent judiciary, are instructed to permit Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys to make oral motions to dismiss. Then, justices are told to move swiftly to grant those dismissals, rather than allow immigrants the 10-day response time. 'Oral decisions must be completed within the same hearing slot on the day testimony and arguments are concluded,' states the memo, which is dated Friday, May 30. It also instructs the judges that no 'additional documentation or briefing is required,' in the hope of cutting down on bureaucratic delays. Once the cases in question are dismissed, the immigrants concerned can be entered into expedited removal proceedings or deemed 'subject to mandatory detention' by ICE without being granted an opportunity to present their case for asylum in the United States before they are deported, the memo advises. A source close to the judges' union told NBC that, while the move was legal, it has nevertheless caused consternation to many immigration judges. 'They think it makes a mockery of the whole process and that it flies in the face of what Trump ran on,' the insider said. 'Immigration enforcement means it's done in a fair manner... and this isn't fair.' The memo notes a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that outlines the conditions under which the U.S. government can move to dismiss an immigrant's case. Still, it misstates the wording of the statute in doing so. Judges may grant motions to dismiss a migrant's case when 'circumstances have changed to such an extent that continuation is no longer in the best interest of the government,' the memo claims. However, the precise wording of the act makes clear that this can only happen when 'circumstances of the case have changed to such an extent that continuation is no longer in the best interest of the government.' Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told NBC that he believes the Justice Department 's guidance order is not legal because it omits those crucial three words. 'The omission of the words 'of the case' is deliberate because DHS is trying to avoid having to speak to the individual case,' he said. 'The law requires them to provide particular reasons for their motion, and they are not doing that. The email is the written policy that contradicts the law.' Former ICE chief of staff Jason Houser said that the purpose of speeding up case dismissals was to enable agents to arrest more people, but, in practice, it would not actually help with Trump's mass deportation push because there is simply not enough space at already-overcrowded detention centers to accommodate more detainees. Over 51,000 immigrants were being held in ICE custody as of May 23, according to the agency's own official data, while it only has the funding to hold 41,500, which means it risks keeping people in substandard living conditions that fall below court-mandated standards. 'Flooding the system with thousands of non-criminals wastes time and resources when federal law enforcement should be focused on national security threats,' he said.
