US deports hundreds of Venezuelans despite court order

ThatRobGuy · Mar 16, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
Oh good grief, Rob. The all of the agencies involved are headquartered within the District of Columbia. The Justice Department is head quartered a few blocks from the courthouse.

Right, and what's the political makeup of the judges on the bench for that district court?

Active Judges:

Appointed by Democratic presidents: 13
Appointed by Republican presidents: 4

Senior Judges:

Appointed by Democratic presidents: 9
Appointed by Republican presidents: 6

So by that breakdown, any progressive entity wanting to challenge a conservative action has a 75% chance of winning, correct?

If every time a progressive entity wanted to challenge a conservative pro-gun law or "anti-Trans bill", they had to do so in east Texas or Alabama, that would be considered a problem, correct?

Arcangl86 · Mar 16, 2025

Valletta said:
Under our Constitution the president, elected by the people, is in charge of the executive branch.

Also under our Constitution, the judicial branch determines what the law is. And the President, in the course of running the executive branch, is to take care that he follows the law.

Valletta said:
Changing a military operation, which may be coordinated with foreign countries in regard to flight path, etc. puts personnel in danger.

Military operations are aborted all the time, and this one could have been as well.

Valletta said:
It is delusional for an un-elected lower court judge (and lower court judges are not even mentioned in the Constitution) to believe he has the power to immediately countermand military orders of the President of the United States.

If the military orders are against the law, then yes he has the power to countermand them.

ThatRobGuy · Mar 16, 2025

RocksInMyHead said:
I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to this case. The case was filed in the DC District, which is a reasonable venue for suing the federal government, and a TRO is a reasonable response to the suit, given the potential for civil rights violations, the legally dubious justification for the action, the administration's rapid movement on the issue, and the lack of any real harm to anyone if the action is paused.

Additionally, while personal opinion is always going to figure into any judge's ruling (as, ultimately, their ruling will be based on their reading of the applicable laws and judicial precedents), the fact that they have an opinion does not make them an "activist judge," as the comment I was replying to alleged.

The DC district is stacked in terms of favoring Democrats.

Active Judges:

Appointed by Democratic presidents: 13
Appointed by Republican presidents: 4

Senior Judges:

Appointed by Democratic presidents: 9
Appointed by Republican presidents: 6

I would agree that the term "activist judge" is thrown around too much. But if you know what all of the judges sincerely interpret the issues as ahead of time, and you get to cherry pick your venue, that's an issue.

No matter what the issue is, there are almost 900 federal judges in the US, it's not hard to find one that would be "favorable" to whatever a person is trying to do.

Hans Blaster · Mar 16, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
Right, and what's the political makeup of the judges on the bench for that district court?

Active Judges:

Appointed by Democratic presidents: 13

Appointed by Republican presidents: 4

Senior Judges:

Appointed by Democratic presidents: 9

Appointed by Republican presidents: 6

So by that breakdown, any progressive entity wanting to challenge a conservative action has a 75% chance of winning, correct?

That is extremely cynical and not how the law works. Everyone of those Republican (in this case all Trump) appointees convicted Jan 6th defendants and sentenced them.

ThatRobGuy said:
If every time a progressive entity wanted to challenge a conservative pro-gun law or "anti-Trans bill", they had to do so in east Texas or Alabama, that would be considered a problem, correct?

The complaints you have heard about Texas are the use of one specific judge in Amarillo (the only one there).

RocksInMyHead · Mar 16, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
The DC district is stacked in terms of favoring Democrats.

I'm aware. But again, I fail to see the relevance. Is there a reason why a judge (regardless of personal ideology) should not have issued a temporary restraining order in this situation?

Valletta · Mar 16, 2025

RocksInMyHead said:
I'm aware. But again, I fail to see the relevance. Is there a reason why a judge (regardless of personal ideology) should not have issued a temporary restraining order in this situation?

Yes, because any judge would be exceeding their authority. Judges certainly do not have power over foreign citizens outside of the borders of the United States.

Richard T · Mar 16, 2025

Valletta said:
Under our Constitution the president, elected by the people, is in charge of the executive branch. Changing a military operation, which may be coordinated with foreign countries in regard to flight path, etc. puts personnel in danger. It is delusional for an un-elected lower court judge (and lower court judges are not even mentioned in the Constitution) to believe he has the power to immediately countermand military orders of the President of the United States.

I edited this post based on new information . "We did not defy a court order. The order came too late, and illegals were already in international airspace," the official said, as first reported by Axios. Trump thanks El Salvador for taking in alleged gang members deported from US: ‘We will not forget’

I previously wrote among other things that "it seems more arrogant to disobey a court order than for a judge to order a flight to return. I am sure they will sort it out though. The more recent Presidents have all been testing the limits of their authority. If Trump extends that further unchecked then a liberal President will also further defy court orders, such as stuff concerning loan forgiveness (somewhat already done) or even 2nd amendment rights. Personally, I hope the courts reign in the President. Too much is being done without due process."

So if it was not illegal at the time, then my comments were premature. I will be more careful in my assumptions. I too had assumed this would be an ongoing method of removal. I guess based on the comments from Trump officials it may not. However, the Gitmo prisoners were returned back to the USA so who knows what is going to happen here. If these prisoners never got a day in court, I think the morality of their being held without due process could still be questioned. I am sure the media will let us know. i am not some liberal wanting to coddle criminal aliens, but I do think it is good that a court reviews their dispositions. I honestly am not sure how individuals are being picked for this treatment and by whom.

RocksInMyHead · Mar 16, 2025

Valletta said:
Yes, because any judge would be exceeding their authority. Judges certainly do not have power over foreign citizens outside of the borders of the United States.

The restraining order applies to the US government, not the migrants.

Servus · Mar 16, 2025

Valletta said:
After hearing that planes with deportees had taken off, Judge Boasberg ordered them to turn back, the Washington Post reported.
Rubio said in a statement on Sunday that the deportations happened under the Alien Enemies Act, and made no mention of the judge's ruling.
He said: "Hundreds of violent criminals were sent out of our country."
Their deportation despite the judge's ruling has raised legal questions.
A lawyer from a rights group involved in the lawsuit against the White House said she had asked the government on Sunday whether the court's order had been violated.
"[We] are waiting to hear, as well as trying to do our own investigation," Lee Gelernt with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement.

US removes hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador despite court order to turn back deportation flights

The White House says it has removed Venezuelan gang members and denies violating a court order.

www.bbc.com

Realize Judge Boasberg is the same judge that gave Clinesmith probation, see the article below. Imagine how much arrogance it takes for a judge to think he has the authority to order aircraft in the air to return to the United States. Such a move was reckless and dangerous.

https://apnews.com/article/intelligence-agencies-europe-political-issues-eastern-europe-government-surveillance-9f4795dd413f42e0fe21a192a1736484

Maybe Judge Boasberg should be charged with obstruction.

Servus · Mar 16, 2025

Goonie said:
A federal judge absolutely has the authority to order a US registered flight to return.

Evidence please.

RocksInMyHead · Mar 16, 2025

ozso said:
Maybe Judge Boasberg should be charged with obstruction.

Maybe Scarlett Johansen will marry me.

Servus · Mar 16, 2025

RocksInMyHead said:
Maybe Scarlett Johansen will marry me.

Very funny, Colin.

BPPLEE · Mar 16, 2025

ozso said:
Evidence please.

Over international waters?

Maria Billingsley · Mar 17, 2025

Valletta said:
After hearing that planes with deportees had taken off, Judge Boasberg ordered them to turn back, the Washington Post reported.
Rubio said in a statement on Sunday that the deportations happened under the Alien Enemies Act, and made no mention of the judge's ruling.
He said: "Hundreds of violent criminals were sent out of our country."
Their deportation despite the judge's ruling has raised legal questions.
A lawyer from a rights group involved in the lawsuit against the White House said she had asked the government on Sunday whether the court's order had been violated.
"[We] are waiting to hear, as well as trying to do our own investigation," Lee Gelernt with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement.

US removes hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador despite court order to turn back deportation flights

The White House says it has removed Venezuelan gang members and denies violating a court order.

www.bbc.com

Realize Judge Boasberg is the same judge that gave Clinesmith probation, see the article below. Imagine how much arrogance it takes for a judge to think he has the authority to order aircraft in the air to return to the United States. Such a move was reckless and dangerous.

https://apnews.com/article/intelligence-agencies-europe-political-issues-eastern-europe-government-surveillance-9f4795dd413f42e0fe21a192a1736484

Here is what went down and here is why this judge has the authority.

1. We are not at war.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power "to declare War." This means that the formal declaration of war is a legislative power.
2. The Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in connection with the deportation of these Venezuelan individuals, who were alleged to be gang members. This can only be used during a war in which Congress did not declare.
3. "Judicial Review"was invoked. The power of the courts to examine the actions of other branches of government (executive and legislative) to determine whether those actions are constitutional. If a court finds an action to be unconstitutional, it can declare that action null and void. This is what happened.
4. The end result is up in the air. Was the order ignored or not.

RocksInMyHead · Mar 17, 2025

Richard T said:
So if it was not illegal at the time, then my comments were premature.

This isn't a case of a law being passed to make something that was previously legal illegal. The lawsuit alleges that the order to deport these people was illegal (because it is based on an invalid application of the law). So, assuming that the lawsuit is successful, it was always illegal to do this. The Trump administration's excuse is just that they started the deportations immediately, so by the time the restraining order was issued, the planes were already outside of the US.

I'm not sure that legal reasoning actually flies though, so to speak.

Richard T said:
I will be more careful in my assumptions. I too had assumed this would be an ongoing method of removal.

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be intended as such. The Trump administration intends to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport anyone it alleges to be a member of a criminal gang without due process. They just happen to have had several hundred already collected and ready to go.

Richard T said:
If these prisoners never got a day in court, I think the morality of their being held without due process could still be questioned. I am sure the media will let us know. i am not some liberal wanting to coddle criminal aliens, but I do think it is good that a court reviews their dispositions. I honestly am not sure how individuals are being picked for this treatment and by whom.

This is the crux of the issue, really - these people aren't getting trials or immigration hearings. The government says they're part of a gang, and now - because of Trump's EO - they can be summarily deported.

durangodawood · Mar 17, 2025

Valletta said:
Under our Constitution the president, elected by the people, is in charge of the executive branch.....

If the checks on executive power, which the framers envisioned, are negated, then we have an imperial presidency - and our republic is over.

ThatRobGuy · Mar 17, 2025

RocksInMyHead said:
I'm aware. But again, I fail to see the relevance. Is there a reason why a judge (regardless of personal ideology) should not have issued a temporary restraining order in this situation?

Well sure...

Venezuela can be feasibly considered a hostile country (noting the multiple sanctions in place against them). Gang members from that nation can certainly be considered hostile and a security risk.

The Immigration and Nationality Act grants the executive branch the power to arrest, detain, and remove non-citizens who violate visa terms, commit crimes, or pose security threats. It also gives them the power to designate groups as a terrorist organization (which they've done for Tren de Aragua)

In cases that went to the supreme court, the SCOTUS has almost always upheld broad executive discretion on such matters.

So, I don't think anyone can pretend that it's an "open and shut case", or that it couldn't have possibly gone very different if heard by a different district court judge.

The original case/challenge was based on the deportation of 5 gang members, based on articles I've read, the original apprehensions took place in Colorado, Utah, and Texas.

I don't think we can pretend that it wasn't a specific strategic choice for the ACLU to file their case where they did. They have the option of filing where the person was arrested/detained, or file in the jurisdiction where the government action occurred.

Which means, anytime they want to challenge Trump, they can always just pick the district that's stacked 13-4 in favor of the more "progressive" mindsets.

RocksInMyHead · Mar 17, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
Well sure...

Venezuela can be feasibly considered a hostile country (noting the multiple sanctions in place against them). Gang members from that nation can certainly be considered hostile and a security risk.

The Immigration and Nationality Act grants the executive branch the power to arrest, detain, and remove non-citizens who violate visa terms, commit crimes, or pose security threats. It also gives them the power to designate groups as a terrorist organization (which they've done for Tren de Aragua)

In cases that went to the supreme court, the SCOTUS has almost always upheld broad executive discretion on such matters.

These are all reasons why the government might successfully defend itself. They are not reasons why the action should not be temporarily paused while that defense occurs - especially given that a similar list of reasons exists to show that the plaintiffs might succeed in their suit.

RocksInMyHead · Mar 17, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
So, I don't think anyone can pretend that it's an "open and shut case", or that it couldn't have possibly gone very different if heard by a different district court judge.

No one is pretending that it's "open and shut" - the judge issued a temporary restraining order for 14 days, with a hearing scheduled for this coming Friday I believe. That is a reasonable action to take.

Hans Blaster · Mar 17, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
Well sure...

Venezuela can be feasibly considered a hostile country (noting the multiple sanctions in place against them). Gang members from that nation can certainly be considered hostile and a security risk.

"Hostile" or not, there is no universe where a criminal gang operating in the US is an "invading military force" under the definitions of the ARA.

ThatRobGuy said:
The Immigration and Nationality Act grants the executive branch the power to arrest, detain, and remove non-citizens who violate visa terms, commit crimes, or pose security threats.

Then they don't need the ARA, so they shouldn't invoke it.

ThatRobGuy said:
It also gives them the power to designate groups as a terrorist organization (which they've done for Tren de Aragua)

Only such that it renders the term "terrorist" meaningless. Terrorism is the use of violence or threats of violence to achieve political aims. It is not about making money.

ThatRobGuy said:
In cases that went to the supreme court, the SCOTUS has almost always upheld broad executive discretion on such matters.

So, I don't think anyone can pretend that it's an "open and shut case", or that it couldn't have possibly gone very different if heard by a different district court judge.

ThatRobGuy said:
The original case/challenge was based on the deportation of 5 gang members, based on articles I've read, the original apprehensions took place in Colorado, Utah, and Texas.

And how long ago were those arrests? (A couple hundred were deported.) Are any of them even in those states anymore?

ThatRobGuy said:
I don't think we can pretend that it wasn't a specific strategic choice for the ACLU to file their case where they did. They have the option of filing where the person was arrested/detained, or file in the jurisdiction where the government action occurred.

And then you'd be complaining about the "liberal majority" in the District of Colorado or District of Utah. (I have no idea which of the Texas districts would be involved.

ThatRobGuy said:
Which means, anytime they want to challenge Trump, they can always just pick the district that's stacked 13-4 in favor of the more "progressive" mindsets.

Another factor in the reasoning might be that the ACLU has more and better lawyers available in DC than say in Denver or Salt Lake City.

US deports hundreds of Venezuelans despite court order

Part of the IT crowd

Newbie

Part of the IT crowd

Area Meathead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

<><

<><

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

<><

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

re Member

Part of the IT crowd

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Area Meathead

Similar threads