Trump Aims to Dismiss Judge Over Venezuelan Deportation Ruling

On Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice aimed to displace a judge who ordered the Trump administration to clarify whether it went against a court ruling by deporting hundreds of Venezuelans, whom the White House classifies as violent offenders, according to a report by Reuters.

Over the weekend, more than 200 Venezuelans, identified by the Trump administration as part of the Tren de Aragua gang—which has been associated with kidnapping, extortion, and contract killings—were deported to El Salvador. This occurred despite a judge temporarily blocking the use of a wartime law to facilitate these deportations.

Several legal experts consulted by Reuters stated that the flights represented a significant challenge to the separation of powers, a claim that the White House refuted.

Since assuming office in January, President Donald Trump has consistently sought to expand the reach of executive power, including cutting expenditures approved by Congress, dismantling governmental agencies, and terminating thousands of federal employees.

On Monday, his Justice Department filed a motion to remove Judge James Boasberg from the case.

This request to remove Judge Boasberg was made just before a hearing in his Washington, D.C., courtroom, scheduled for 5 PM that day. Judge Boasberg had previously instructed the government to clarify the schedule of the flights that transported the Venezuelans, specifying whether they took off after his order was issued.

During an emergency session on Saturday, requested by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Judge Boasberg issued a two-week temporary suspension of Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to facilitate the deportations.

The White House argued on Sunday that federal courts “have no jurisdiction” regarding Trump’s authority to expel foreign adversaries under this 18th-century law, typically employed during wartime. However, they also indicated compliance with the judge’s order.

In a court filing just before Monday’s hearing, the Trump administration claimed that the judge’s verbal directive to ground any planes carrying the deportees was “not enforceable” because it lacked formal written documentation.

The administration maintained that it did not breach Boasberg’s subsequent written ruling barring immigration officials from deporting individuals since the planes had already taken off before it was issued.

“It’s a critical question: how can a judge in Washington, D.C. assert authority over three planes full of criminals flying over the Gulf of America?” Secretary of State Marco Rubio questioned during an appearance on Fox News, using the term preferred by Trump for the Gulf of Mexico.

However, some legal experts argued that the planes’ location did not change the legal framework.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, characterized the administration’s reasoning as “bordering on the ridiculous” and “contrary to well-established constitutional law,” emphasizing that federal officials remain accountable to the Constitution regardless of their location.

“A government plane conducting government business does not operate in a legal vacuum,” said Gerhardt, adding: “If that were the case, the government could act freely as long as it wasn’t on American soil.”

With a Republican Congress largely supporting his agenda, federal judges have frequently served as the only checks on Trump’s executive actions, putting many on hold while reviewing their legality. Advocacy groups have accused the administration of failing to comply with certain judicial orders.

Trump has been actively challenging the traditional checks and balances between the branches of U.S. government.

Rubio also raised concerns about a routine practice within the federal judiciary when he stated on Fox News, “We’ve lost control. All someone has to do is find a judge anywhere in the country to issue orders that apply nationally.”

This principle—where a district judge can issue a ruling with national implications—is not new and has been employed by Trump at the start of litigation to obstruct other measures he opposes.

The Alien Enemies Act

Trump rarely invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which grants the president wartime authority to deport non-citizens whose primary loyalty lies with a foreign nation, to carry out many of the deportations.

This law has only been implemented three times: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, when it was used to justify the mass internment of individuals of Japanese, German, and Italian descent.

According to Leavitt, a total of 261 people were deported, including 137 under the Alien Enemies Act and over 100 through standard immigration procedures. Additionally, there were 23 Salvadoran members of the MS-13 gang among those removed.

The Trump administration has variously labeled the deported Venezuelans as gang members, “monsters,” or “alien terrorists,” yet has not provided evidence to support these claims. The ACLU has criticized authorities for misapplying these labels.

On Monday, four Democratic senators called Trump’s application of the Alien Enemies Act in immigration enforcement an “unlawful and audacious seizure of power.”

“It is essential for all of us, including the judiciary, to hold this administration accountable and to prevent the Trump administration from leading us down a dark and perilous path,” asserted Senators Dick Durbin, Alex Padilla, Cory Booker, and Peter Welch in a statement.