- Judge Boasberg demands DOJ compliance with deportation flight disclosure
- Justice Department cites national security via state secrets privilege
- Legal clash centers on rare use of Alien Enemies Act for removals
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg delivered a scathing critique of Justice Department attorneys Thursday, accusing them of failing to meet court-ordered transparency requirements regarding controversial deportation flights. The standoff centers on removal flights conducted under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century statute last invoked during World War II. Legal experts note this marks the first modern application of the law for mass deportations.
The court ordered federal officials to return deported migrants following procedural concerns, but administration officials declined to divert flights mid-route. This refusal prompted Boasberg to demand sworn declarations from Cabinet members involved in privilege discussions – an unprecedented move in immigration jurisprudence. The judge set a March 25 deadline for the government to justify its noncompliance.
This confrontation echoes 2013 tensions when the Obama administration invoked state secrets to block NSA surveillance details. However, immigration attorneys argue the current case sets dangerous precedent by applying national security claims to deportation procedures. A 2022 California case saw similar secrecy arguments fail when courts ordered ICE to disclose detention facility COVID protocols.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt maintained the administration acted within presidential authority, stating all flights departed before formal court orders were issued. Legal analysts counter that this technical compliance ignores judicial intent, potentially undermining constitutional checks and balances. The DOJ’s delayed response strategy risks contempt charges if officials miss Friday’s declaration deadline.
Chief Justice John Roberts entered the fray through a rare public statement defending judicial independence after impeachment threats surfaced. Historical records show only 15 federal judges faced impeachment proceedings since 1803, none successful for ruling against executive branch actions. This political-judicial clash coincides with heightened immigration court backlogs, which surpassed 3 million pending cases in February 2023.
As the March 25 showdown approaches, civil rights groups warn of expanded executive power precedents. The Center for Constitutional Rights notes state secrets invocations increased 400% since 2001, but rarely in immigration contexts. With both sides digging in, this legal battle may ultimately test the boundaries of wartime statutes in peacetime governance.