Latest news with #AlienEnemiesActof1789
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller came prepared for war — and he won't back down
There was a speculation boomlet a couple of weeks ago, after Donald Trump "promoted" national security adviser Mike Waltz to U.N. ambassador and temporarily tasked Secretary of State Marco Rubio with the job, that the name being floated as a permanent replacement was none other than Stephen Miller, Trump's trusted adviser and current deputy chief of staff. That seemed a bit strange, since Miller has never shown any particular interest in global affairs beyond immigration, but he has lately become a more public face commenting on a wide range of issues so perhaps he wants to expand his role. We haven't heard anything further much about that since it was first floated — maybe it was a trial balloon that fizzled. It wasn't easy to imagine Miller giving up his lifelong mission of expelling as many nonwhite people from America as possible, and in this administration that's a full time job. In the wake of the shocking propaganda the administration put out to celebrate their deportation of alleged gang members to a notorious Salvadoran gulag, we are now seeing story after story all over local and national news, social media and influential podcasts about violent ICE raids of homes and businesses, ordinary people being snatched up when they show up for hearings, brutal vehicle stops even the arrests of judges and elected officials. Very few of the people being seized in these sweeps are gang members or accused of serious crimes. All this is taking a toll on Trump's approval rating. The latest round of polls showed him underwater across the board on these policies. But it's also all part of Miller's plan, and he is undaunted. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago about his decision to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1789, Miller understood that what this administration intended to do had no precedent. They seriously intend to deport millions of people. Miller was well aware that the courts were a significant barrier. He was the architect of the ill-fated travel ban early in the first Trump administration, which was first struck down (and later watered down) by the courts. He understood that the president was going to have to be both aggressive and provocative. Trump's team needed to assert presidential authority with total confidence, and ensure that the Supreme Court understood they would have to issue the final word on what the law says and how it will be enforced. We're only partway through that process. So far, Trump's apparatchiks have not blatantly defied the courts, but they're working them around the edges. Miller is the most vociferous in claiming that the plain words of a Supreme Court order mean the opposite of what they actually say, which is a highly disorienting thing to hear from a presidential adviser. The best example came with his Oval Office rant his rant proclaiming that the high court had ruled 9-0 in favor of the administration's deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García when the exact opposite was true. (You can read the order here.) In another case pertaining to the deportation flights to El Salvador, the Supreme Court ruled that actions on behalf of detainees must be brought in the districts where they are being held, and that intended deportees must be notified with enough time to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In plain English, they must be allowed a hearing before they can be kidnapped and sent to the gulag. So far, judges in three districts have ruled that the Alien Enemies Act, on which the administration's policy is predicated, has been inappropriately invoked to justify this policy because of the fatuous assertion that the U.S. has been "invaded" by foreign gang members. That is not the plain meaning of "invasion" under this law. You could just as easily claim that the Beatles should have been deported because of the "British Invasion" of 1964. The Alien Enemies Act isn't the only trick Miller has up his sleeve, however. Last Friday he signaled that another, even more dangerous approach is coming. Despite the Supreme Court's clear ruling that potential deportees have a right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Miller is now pondering invoking the "Suspension Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. CNN reports that Trump has been involved in these discussions. He hasn't said anything specific about the question of habeas corpus, but when asked about he might do to counteract nationwide injunctions against his deportations, he said there were "very strong ways" to "mitigate" those: "There's one way that's been used by three very highly respected presidents, but we hope we don't have to go that route." Miller and Trump love to demean judges who rule against them and Miller has veered especially far into outlandish insults, routinely calling them radicals or "communists." He may have miscalculated, however, in saying, "Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not." As law professor Steve Vladeck observes in a highly informative summary of the issue: [Miller is] suggesting that the administration would (unlawfully) suspend habeas corpus if (but apparently only if) it disagrees with how courts rule in these cases. In other words, it's not the judicial review itself that's imperiling national security; it's the possibility that the government might lose. That's not, and has never been, a viable argument for suspending habeas corpus. Were it otherwise, there'd be no point to having the writ in the first place — let alone to enshrining it in the Constitution. One assumes that even if the judiciary is only operating out of an instinct self-preservation it might want to push back against that kind of direct threat. But you never professor Leah Litman, whose book "Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes" publishes this week, appeared on MSNBC recently. She observed that while Chief Justice John Roberts has recently said in public that the job of the judiciary is to check the "excesses" of the other branches, we also need to remember that he wrote the atrocious decision on presidential immunity and appears to be a longtime proponent of the "unitary executive theory," which holds that the president has virtually unlimited power. So it's entirely possible that Miller won't have to go nuclear and compel Trump to suspend habeas corpus after all. The Roberts court could simply decide that right is optional, despite the plain language of the Constitution. But it's clear enough that Miller is prepared to keep raising the stakes, no matter what the courts do to stop him. Who knows what other cards he has left to play? He's ready to fight a long war.
The Guardian
27-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Trump disdains conservatism. His governing philosophy is absolute power
Donald Trump issued his declaration of war against his 'enemies within' at the Department of Justice on 14 March. Thus the president launched a constitutional crisis that encompasses not just a group of migrants snatched without due process and transported against federal court orders to a foreign prison, but a wholesale assault on virtually every major institution of American society. 'We will expel the rogue actors and corrupt forces from our government. We will expose, and very much expose, their egregious crimes and severe misconduct,' he pledged. 'It's going to be legendary.' Trump's speech condensed his mission to its despotic essence. While he distilled his contempt, Trump also marked his disdain for the traditional conservatism of limited government, respect for the law and liberty. He defined his project, built on his executive orders as substitutes for the law, to crown himself with unrestrained powers to intimidate, threaten and even kidnap. His political philosophy is a ruthless quest for absolute power. Trump hailed his appointees for being 'so tough' – the enthusiastically compliant attorney general, Pam Bondi, and the irrepressible flunky FBI director, Kash Patel. He attacked lawyers whose firms he would issue executive orders against to eviscerate their work – 'really, really bad people'. He claimed Joe Biden and the former attorney general Merrick Garland 'tried to turn America into a corrupt communist and third world country'. And he described 'people that come into our country' as 'stone cold killers. These are killers like – they make our killers look nice by comparison. They make our killers look nice. These are rough, tough people with the tattoos all over their face.' Trump's accusations are invariably projections of his own malice that he manufactures into politically pliable paranoia. No staff attorneys within the department were invited to the speech, as people at the justice department told me. The senior lawyers from the Public Integrity Section had already resigned when Trump attempted to coerce them to participate in dropping the prosecution of New York City's mayor, Eric Adams, for corruption in exchange for his support of Trump's coming roundup and deportation of migrants. After Trump, a convicted felon, concluded by comparing himself to Al Capone, the mafia boss convicted of tax evasion – 'the great Alphonse Capone, legendary Scarface, was attacked only a tiny fraction of what Trump was attacked' – Trump's theme song from his political rallies, YMCA, blared out of the loudspeakers in the department auditorium. The next day, Trump announced his executive order citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1789, a wartime measure, to incarcerate members of the Tren de Aragua gang he asserted were coordinating with the Maduro government of Venezuela to commit 'brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking'. (On 20 March, the New York Times reported: 'The intelligence community assessment concluded that the gang, Tren de Aragua, was not directed by Venezuela's government or committing crimes in the United States on its orders, according to the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity.') The 238 men abducted were taken without any due process to a maximum security prison operated by the Salvadoran strongman Nayib Bukele, who calls himself 'the coolest dictator' and whose government is being paid at least $6m in an arrangement with the Trump administration. In a hearing on 24 March before the US court of appeals for the DC circuit, Judge Patricia Millett, criticizing the absence of due process, said: 'Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act.' She asked the deputy assistant attorney general, Drew Ensign, arguing the administration's case: 'What's factually wrong about what I said?' 'Well, your Honor, we certainly dispute the Nazi analogy,' he replied. Trump's assertion of emergency power under the Alien Enemies Act is more than a bit analogous to the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the chief legal scholar and apologist of the Nazi regime, 'Crown Jurist of the Third Reich'. The falsity, according to the intelligence community, of Trump's claim about the men underlines the analogy of Trump's argument to Schmitt's. 'Authority, not truth, produces law,' Schmitt wrote. 'Sovereign is he who decides on invocation of the state of emergency.' And then: 'Der Ausnahmefall offenbart das Wesen der staatlichen Autorität am klarsten' – 'The State of Emergency reveals most clearly the essence of the authority of the state … The exception is thus far more important that the ordinary rule. The normal state of affairs shows nothing; the emergency shows everything; it confirms not only the rule, rather the rule derives strictly from the emergency.' The ACLU filed a lawsuit on 15 March before chief judge James Boasberg of the US district court of the District of Columbia to halt the flight to El Salvador. The judge issued an order for the planes to return to the US, but the Trump administration defied it. Trump's defiance has set in motion a flurry of legal challenges and court cases heard in district courts and circuit courts of appeals, as well as the supreme court. On 7 April, the court ruled that the detainees had the right to due process, which they were denied. On 11 April, the justices unanimously ordered the administration to facilitate the return of one wrongly taken individual, Kilmar Ábrego García, a legal resident of Maryland who was identified by his family and had no criminal record. On 19 April, the court temporarily blocked a new round of deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. CBS's 60 Minutes reported: 'We could not find criminal records for 75% of the Venezuelans.' Bloomberg News reported that about 90% had no criminal records. On 14 April, Trump welcomed Bukele to the White House. Trump has turned the Oval Office into his small stage with cabinet secretaries and staff seated on the couches as his chorus. Bukele was dressed in black casual wear, but not admonished by JD Vance as he had criticized Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy for supposedly showing disrespect to Trump by not appearing in a suit and tie. Trump and Bukele played the scene as a buddy movie, kidding each other, but not kidding, about repression. 'Mr President,' said Bukele, 'you have 350 million people to liberate. But to liberate 350 million people, you have to imprison some. That's the way it works, right?' 'The homegrowns are next, the homegrowns,' said Trump. 'You've got to build about five more places.' 'Yeah, we got the space,' Bukele said. When the question of Ábrego García was raised by a reporter, Bondi said: 'That's not up to us,' and that it was 'up to El Salvador'. 'Well, I'm – supposed you're not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist in the United States, right?' Bukele replied. Trump reassured him: 'It's only CNN.' Bukele called the question 'preposterous'. 'Well, they'd love to have a criminal released into our country,' said Trump. 'These are sick people. Marco, do you have something to say about that?' It was another test of the secretary of state's sycophancy. Marco Rubio rose to the occasion. 'No court in the United States has a right to conduct a foreign policy of the United States,' he said. 'It's that simple. End of story.' Standing behind Rubio, Trump's most influential aide and the architect of his immigration policy, Stephen Miller, chimed in: 'To Marco's Point, the supreme court said exactly what Marco said. That no court has the authority to compel the foreign policy function in the United States. We won a case 9-0. And people like CNN are portraying it as a loss, as usual, because they want foreign terrorists in the country who kidnap women and children.' But a reporter attempted to point out that the court had in fact ruled it was illegal to deprive the captives of due process. 'Well, it's illegal to, so I just wanted some clarity on it,' he asked. Trump jumped in: 'And that's why nobody watches you anymore. You have no credibility.' On 17 April, the day the supreme court ruled on Ábrego García, on Trump said, 'I'm not involved in it,' though he had signed the executive order that authorized his kidnapping. Trump was reverting to the tactic of denial, however patently ludicrous, that he had been schooled in originally by Roy Cohn, the Republican power broker and mafia lawyer who had been his private attorney. The Trump administration continues to claim it has no control over the captives in the Salvadorian prison and they cannot be returned. Trump's disavowal of responsibility made the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem's, visit to the prison to tape a video on 26 March problematic on several levels. If Trump has no control, then how was Noem allowed the run of the place? If the prisoners were combatants under the Alien Enemies Act, then their status made her appearance a violation of the Geneva convention's Article 1 that outlaws 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment', and Article 13 that prohibits 'acts of violence or intimidation' and 'insults and public curiosity' – that is, using prisoners for propaganda purposes. If Schmitt's argument is not Trump's argument, the difference has certainly not confused the judges handling the cases. Boasberg ruled that the Trump administration had acted with 'willful disregard' for his order and, while contempt proceedings were paused, threatened to appoint a special prosecutor if the Department of Justice declines to do so. The Maryland federal judge Paula Xinis, who ordered the administration to return Ábrego García, said on 15 April she had seen no evidence of progress. She ruled on 22 April that such stonewalling 'reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations … That ends now.' She also stated: 'Defendants must supplement their answer to include all individuals involved as requested in this interrogatory.' That discovery process might range into stranger precincts of Maga depths than imagined. The New Yorker reported on 'a Maga salon' at a tech billionaire's Washington residence to which a Republican lobbyist, Andrew Beck, brought Trace Meyer, self-described as the 'Babe Ruth of bitcoin', where they discussed with state department staffers the 'work-in-progress plan' for abducting migrants to El Salvador. The officials had reached 'an impasse in the negotiations. Meyer, through his crypto connections, was able to help reopen the conversation.' Add to the discovery list: Beck, Meyer and the state department officials. In denying the Trump administration's motion for a halt in the Xinis ruling, Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III, of the court of appeals for the fourth circuit, issued a thunderous opinion on 17 April, marking a historic break between principled conservatism and Trump's regime. Wilkinson is an eminent conservative figure within the judiciary, of an old Virginia family, a clerk to Justice Lewis Powell, and a Ronald Reagan appointee revered in the Federalist Society. 'The government,' Wilkinson wrote, 'is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.' Wilkinson concluded with a siren call about Trump's threat. 'If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive's obligation to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' would lose its meaning.' Wilkinson has defined the stark conflict headed toward a unstoppable collision. Against Trump's appropriation of Schmitt's authoritarian logic, the conservative jurist has thrown down the gauntlet of American constitutional law. Trump's disdain for that sort of conservatism moves the cases again and again toward the conservative majority of the supreme court, which must decide its allegiance, either like Wilkinson, to the constitution, or instead to Trump's untrammeled power that would reduce the court itself to a cipher. Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump deports man with no convictions but pardons criminals. What due process?
U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona did not travel all the way to El Salvador with other congressional Democrats to talk about the criminals who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But she should have. Ansari and the others went to El Salvador to draw attention to President Donald Trump's illegal use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1789 to fast-track the deportations of suspected Venezuelan gang members to a notorious prison in that country. There's a simple comparison to be made between the U.S. Capitol rioters – who were indicted, represented by attorneys, received trials (if they wanted them), got convicted and were then freed by Trump – and the Venezuelans who were rounded up and shipped out with no due process. Criticism of Trump's deportation policy ramped up after a Maryland man named Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported. Administration officials at first admitted it was a mistake. They've since changed their tune. In El Salvador, Ansari said, "It isn't just about Kilmar. It is the fact that our government is relentlessly going after any immigrant that's trying to come to the United States, or is in the United States, without any regard for due process." Trump's office called what Ansari and the Democrats did an "apology tour" for a "deported illegal immigrant gang member." Opinion: Wrongly deported Abrego Garcia has tattoo, a Bulls hat. So do I. Am I in MS-13? Republican U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh of Arizona, a diehard Trump sycophant, chimed in, saying he was "the ONLY freshman Arizona Representative NOT fighting on behalf of an El Salvadoran illegal immigrant & accused gangbanger/wife-beater." Note the last part of what Hamadeh said, particularly the word "accused." Abrego Garcia has not been convicted of a crime. And, like the other deportees, he had no opportunity to defend himself in court. That wasn't the case for the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. All of them had opportunities to make their cases. They were represented by lawyers. They got to challenge the evidence against them. They could have gone to trial. Many did. And roughly 80% were convicted. Soon after his second presidential inauguration, Trump, calling them "patriots," either pardoned them or commuted their sentences. An NPR investigation of those "patriots" later found that dozens of them had prior convictions or pending charges for all manner of ugly crimes. Things like rape, sexual abuse of a minor, domestic violence, manslaughter, production of child sexual abuse material and drug trafficking. Funny, though, I do not recall Hamadeh – or other Republicans – howling about letting such people off the hook for their Jan. 6 crimes. Likewise, I heard no complaints from Republicans when Trump pardoned individuals who were caught on tape and convicted of beating police with flagpoles, batons, clubs and baseball bats. Or who had used stun guns and chemical sprays. Nor do I recall former President Joe Biden trying to send the rioters to a foreign prison or ignoring their constitutional rights. Opinion: America promised them safety. Now they fear what Trump will do next. I also didn't hear any loud complaints from any Republicans in the Arizona congressional delegation when Trump pardoned Enrique Tarrio of the right-wing Proud Boys and commuted the prison sentence of Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers, each of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. In other words, trying to overthrow the government. Back in 2015, Republican U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, who now wants to be Arizona's governor, was at an event where Rhodes said that then-U.S. Sen. John McCain "should be tried for treason before a jury of his peers. … Then after we convict him, he should be hung by the neck until dead." The convicted associates of Tarrio and Rhodes also were set free. And again, no complaints from Republicans. All of these criminals were given due process. All were either convicted or pleaded guilty. All were set free by Trump. Yet for the individuals deported to hell in El Salvador, there has been no due process. And Trump has actually said on social media, "We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years." Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. There is the simple, horrifying dichotomy that Ansari and others might point out: We have an American president who frees convicted criminals and imprisons those who've been convicted of no crimes. Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, put it this way, "If you deny the constitutional rights of one man, you threaten the constitutional rights and due process for everyone else in America." EJ Montini is a columnist for the Arizona Republic, where this column originally appeared. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Due process? Not under Trump – unless you're Jan. 6 rioter | Opinion
USA Today
26-04-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump deports man with no convictions but pardons criminals. What due process?
Trump deports man with no convictions but pardons criminals. What due process? | Opinion Donald Trump wants immigrants accused of crimes, like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, deported to El Salvador without due process. Unlike the Jan. 6 rioters who were tried, convicted and set free. Show Caption Hide Caption Rep. Yassamin Ansari advocates for deportees on trip to El Salvador Arizona's Democratic U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari talks on April 22, 2025, about her trip to El Salvador, where she advocated for deportees from the U.S. U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona did not travel all the way to El Salvador with other congressional Democrats to talk about the criminals who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But she should have. Ansari and the others went to El Salvador to draw attention to President Donald Trump's illegal use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1789 to fast-track the deportations of suspected Venezuelan gang members to a notorious prison in that country. There's a simple comparison to be made between the U.S. Capitol rioters – who were indicted, represented by attorneys, received trials (if they wanted them), got convicted and were then freed by Trump – and the Venezuelans who were rounded up and shipped out with no due process. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was accused but never convicted Criticism of Trump's deportation policy ramped up after a Maryland man named Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported. Administration officials at first admitted it was a mistake. They've since changed their tune. In El Salvador, Ansari said, "It isn't just about Kilmar. It is the fact that our government is relentlessly going after any immigrant that's trying to come to the United States, or is in the United States, without any regard for due process." Trump's office called what Ansari and the Democrats did an "apology tour" for a "deported illegal immigrant gang member." Opinion: Wrongly deported Abrego Garcia has tattoo, a Bulls hat. So do I. Am I in MS-13? Republican U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh of Arizona, a diehard Trump sycophant, chimed in, saying he was "the ONLY freshman Arizona Representative NOT fighting on behalf of an El Salvadoran illegal immigrant & accused gangbanger/wife-beater." Note the last part of what Hamadeh said, particularly the word "accused." Jan. 6 rioters got all the benefits of due process Abrego Garcia has not been convicted of a crime. And, like the other deportees, he had no opportunity to defend himself in court. That wasn't the case for the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. All of them had opportunities to make their cases. They were represented by lawyers. They got to challenge the evidence against them. They could have gone to trial. Many did. And roughly 80% were convicted. Soon after his second presidential inauguration, Trump, calling them "patriots," either pardoned them or commuted their sentences. An NPR investigation of those "patriots" later found that dozens of them had prior convictions or pending charges for all manner of ugly crimes. Things like rape, sexual abuse of a minor, domestic violence, manslaughter, production of child sexual abuse material and drug trafficking. Funny, though, I do not recall Hamadeh – or other Republicans – howling about letting such people off the hook for their Jan. 6 crimes. Trump freed those convicted of beating police officers Likewise, I heard no complaints from Republicans when Trump pardoned individuals who were caught on tape and convicted of beating police with flagpoles, batons, clubs and baseball bats. Or who had used stun guns and chemical sprays. Nor do I recall former President Joe Biden trying to send the rioters to a foreign prison or ignoring their constitutional rights. Opinion: America promised them safety. Now they fear what Trump will do next. I also didn't hear any loud complaints from any Republicans in the Arizona congressional delegation when Trump pardoned Enrique Tarrio of the right-wing Proud Boys and commuted the prison sentence of Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers, each of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. In other words, trying to overthrow the government. Back in 2015, Republican U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, who now wants to be Arizona's governor, was at an event where Rhodes said that then-U.S. Sen. John McCain "should be tried for treason before a jury of his peers. … Then after we convict him, he should be hung by the neck until dead." The convicted associates of Tarrio and Rhodes also were set free. And again, no complaints from Republicans. If you deny the rights of one, you deny the rights of all All of these criminals were given due process. All were either convicted or pleaded guilty. All were set free by Trump. Yet for the individuals deported to hell in El Salvador, there has been no due process. And Trump has actually said on social media, "We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years." There is the simple, horrifying dichotomy that Ansari and others might point out: We have an American president who frees convicted criminals and imprisons those who've been convicted of no crimes. Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, put it this way, "If you deny the constitutional rights of one man, you threaten the constitutional rights and due process for everyone else in America." EJ Montini is a columnist for the Arizona Republic, where this column originally appeared.
Axios
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Judge warns "probable cause exists" to hold Trump in contempt over deportation flights
A federal judge said Wednesday that he has found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt for defying his order to halt deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. Why it matters: The Trump administration's defiance of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's order last month has sparked a high-stakes legal battle that could test the limits of President Trump's deportation powers. It has also proven to be a political lightning rod, with both administration officials and Democratic lawmakers visiting the infamous El Salvadoran mega-prison where the migrants are being sent. The big picture: The Trump administration's decision to proceed with the deportation flights displayed a "willful disregard" for the order, Boasberg wrote in a ruling Wednesday. The administration has defended its decision to follow through with the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1789, arguing the planes were already in international waters at the time and the ruling did not apply. This reasoning, Boasberg noted, "requires ignoring the clear context in which the Order was issued." Zoom in: Boasberg wrote that the Trump administration had been given "ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory." "Probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt," he added. The other side: White House communications director Steven Cheung wrote on X Wednesday that the Trump administration plans "to seek immediate appellate relief." "The President is 100% committed to ensuring that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants are no longer a threat to Americans and their communities across the country," Cheung added. Zoom out: Last month, Trump invoked an 18th-century wartime authority to justify the deportation of some 250 Venezuelan migrants it accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The migrants were subsequently transferred to El Salvador's Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), where Boasberg has warned they are likely to suffer "significant harm." Meanwhile, Republicans have targeted Boasberg for impeachment for attempting to block the deportations. What we're watching: Boasberg said he would allow the court to attempt to rectify its violation voluntarily. If they fail to do so, the court will try to determine which officials are responsible for the order's violation. The court would then request the Justice Department to prosecute the responsible individuals. If the administration "declines" to do so, "the Court will 'appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt,'" Boasberg added.
