Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares62 Views

      in US Politics

      Here’s what you need to know about your rights when entering the US

      by

      Since Donald Trump returned to the White House, he has carried out the hardline immigration policies he promised on the campaign trail.Trump’s administration sent migrants to the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba – with little access to legal counsel – and singled out two pro-Palestinian academics for deportation. The administration also failed to return El Salvador-destined deportation flights in potential violation of a court order.But in recent weeks, immigration authorities have also repeatedly detained US-bound tourists at the border, sparking public and diplomatic outrage abroad and fears among many people planning trips to the US, or living in the country on visas.Examples have made global headlines. A British woman said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) detained her for three weeks after a mixup at the US-Canada border. Canadian businesswoman and actor Jasmine Mooney said she was detained by Ice for two weeks. Jessica Brösche, a 29-year-old tattoo artist from Germany, was held in immigration detention for six weeks before returning home.There’s suspicion that in some cases people were turned away over anti-Trump views. Among them is a French scientist who was denied entry after immigration officers at an airport found messages on his phone that were critical of Trump, France’s minister of higher education said.With serious concerns growing about whether visitors can safely travel to the US without fear of landing in immigration detention, here is a brief guide to international visitors’ rights.I have valid travel documents. Can customs officers stop and search me?Yes. US customs officers can stop people at entry points to assess whether they can come into the US. They are permitted to search travelers’ belongings for contraband, according to the ACLU of Pennsylvania.They can do this even if there’s nothing suspicious about you or your belongings. Customs agents are not allowed to search you or conduct another inspection “based on your religion, race, national origin, gender, ethnicity or political beliefs”.What about my mobile phone?The government asserts that their authority to search travelers without individualized suspicion also includes searches of electronic devices, including cellphones and laptops. That said, this assertion remains “a contested legal issue”, the ACLU said. Customs officers have at times asked travelers to give them their phone or laptop passwords when they going to or from the US.And if I refuse to unlock my devices?Citizens of the US can’t be denied entry if they refuse to provide passwords or unlock their devices. However, if they refuse, it could prompt a delay, still more questioning and customs officers taking their phone for further inspection.This should also be true for US lawful permanent residents who have been admitted to the US before and maintain their immigration status, as their green cards “can’t be revoked without a hearing before an immigration judge”. For visa holders and travelers from visa waiver countries, they are at risk of being denied entry if they refuse to unlock devices, the ACLU said.If my country is in the visa waiver program, can I enter?In general, the visa waiver program allows citizens of about four dozen countries to enter for up to 90 days without a visa for tourism or business. Citizens of the US, in turn, can travel up to 90 days in program countries.However, travelers from waiver program countries still need valid Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) approval before they come here for at least 72 hours prior to getting on a flight, the New York Times explains.The tricky part is that you can’t get an ESTA if you traveled to certain places after specified times, such as Cuba after 12 January 2021, the Times said. Without an ESTA, a tourist visa is necessary.I have an ESTA. Does that mean I can work?Visitors coming to the US with an ESTA are prohibited from studying or engaging in permanent work. ESTA visitors also give up many rights, such as the right to fight deportation – meaning that persons traveling with an ESTA could wind up facing “mandatory detention”, the Times said.Does a visa allow me to work?There are three types of visas for non-immigrant visitors to the US. There is a visitor visa allowing temporary entry for business purposes, a tourism visa, and a visa for business and travel.The three visas last as long as a decade but visitors with these visas can stay a maximum of six months in the US. Among other things, visitors with these visas are not allowed to do permanent work or study, or engage in paid performances, according to the New York Times.Even if your documents are in order, that doesn’t guarantee admission into the US. According to the Department of State, customs officials “have authority to permit or deny admission to the United States”.What happens if I’m detained?Civil rights advocates now suggest that visitors into the US, especially people who are not citizens, bring information to call an immigration lawyer or emergency contact if they encounter problems. “The stories are definitely concerning,” Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, told the Washington Post.Zafar reportedly said that if travelers are detained, it’s advisable to comply with immigration officers’ directions – and get in touch with a lawyer immediately.So what rights do I actually have?Visitors to the US do have the right to remain silent. But choosing to do so at an entry point could jeopardize entry.If a customs agent asks a visitor with a tourist visa whether they were going to work during their stay, and that person doesn’t answer, then it could result in their being denied entry.If a visitor is not allowed to enter the US, they can “withdraw” their intent to do so and be permitted to return home. Typically their visa gets canceled and they fly back right away.An officer could deny this withdrawal, however, and detain the visitor. That is because these encounters technically take place outside the US and constitutional protections don’t hold. As a result, detainees in this situation don’t automatically have the right to an attorney.How does this work?“If you’re a foreign national, first understand you haven’t affected an entry despite being physically on US soil until you’re admitted properly,” said immigration attorney Michael Wildes, managing partner of Wildes and Weinberg and a professor at the Cardozo School of Law.“It’s a term of art when you’re admitted fully to the United States,” he said. When a person lands on US soil but is not technically admitted, “you might be considered to be what’s called an ‘arriving alien’.“You have greater rights as a criminal than as a foreign national coming with a visa.” More

    • 175 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump rescinds executive order after law firm agrees to provide $40m in free services

      by

      Donald Trump rescinded an executive order targeting a prominent Democratic-leaning law firm after it agreed to provide $40m in free legal services to support his administration’s goals.The White House has targeted law firms whose lawyers have provided legal work that Trump disagrees with. Last week, he issued an order threatening to suspend active security clearances of attorneys at Paul, Weiss and to terminate any federal contracts the firm has.But the president suddenly reversed course following a meeting between Trump and Brad Karp, the chair of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, over the White House order.Trump’s order singled out the work of Mark Pomerantz, who previously worked at the firm and who oversaw an investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office into Trump’s finances before Trump became president. Pomerantz once likened the president to a mob boss.To avoid the consequences of Trump’s order, the White House said, the firm had agreed to “take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints of our society”. The firm reportedly agreed to disavow the use of diversity, equity and inclusion considerations in its hiring and promotion decisions and to dedicate the equivalent of $40m in free legal services to support Trump administration policies on issues including assistance for veterans and countering antisemitism.The firm, the White House claimed, also acknowledged the wrongdoing of Pomerantz, the partner involved in the investigation into Trump’s hush-money payments to an adult film actor. It was unclear whether Karp was aware of that claim.In a statement issued by the White House, Karp said: “We are gratified that the President has agreed to withdraw the Executive Order concerning Paul, Weiss. We look forward to an engaged and constructive relationship with the President and his Administration.”The firm becomes the latest corporate target to make concessions to the president to avoid his ire.Meta and ABC made settlement payments to Trump’s future presidential library to end lawsuits filed by Trump. Other tech and financial firms have publicly rolled back DEI programs in line with Trump’s policy interests.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEarlier executive orders have targeted the law firms of Perkins Coie, which last week sued in federal court in Washington, and Covington & Burling. More

    • 150 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge demands answers from White House on deportation flights to El Salvador

      by

      A federal judge instructed the Trump administration on Thursday to explain why its failure to turn around flights carrying deportees to El Salvador did not violate his court order in a growing showdown between the judicial and executive branches.James Boasberg, the US district judge, demanded answers after flights carrying Venezuelan immigrants alleged by the Trump administration to be gang members landed in El Salvador after the judge temporarily blocked deportations conducted under an 18th-century wartime law. Boasberg had directed the administration to return planes that were already in the air to the US when he ordered the halt.Boasberg had given the administration until noon Thursday to either provide more details about the flights or make a claim that they must be withheld because they would harm “state secrets”. The administration resisted the judge’s request, calling it an “unnecessary judicial fishing” expedition.In a written order, Boasberg called Trump officials’ latest response “woefully insufficient”. The judge said the administration “again evaded its obligations” by merely repeating “the same general information about the flights”. He ordered the administration to “show cause” as to why it didn’t follow his court order to turn around the planes, increasing the prospect that he may consider holding administration officials in contempt of court.The justice department has said the judge’s verbal directions did not count, that only his written order needed to be followed and that it couldn’t apply to flights that had already left the US. A DoJ spokesperson said Thursday that it “continues to believe that the court’s superfluous questioning of sensitive national security information is inappropriate judicial overreach”.A US Immigration and Customs Enforcement official told the judge Thursday the administration needed more time to decide whether it would invoke the state secrets privilege in an effort to block the information’s release.Boasberg then ordered Trump officials to submit a sworn declaration by Friday by a person “with direct involvement in the Cabinet-level discussions” about the state secrets privilege and to tell the court by next Tuesday whether the administration will invoke it.In a deepening conflict between the judicial and executive branches, the US president and many of his allies have called for impeaching Boasberg, who was nominated to the federal bench by Barack Obama. In a rare statement earlier this week, John Roberts, the supreme court chief justice, rejected such calls, saying “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump on Thursday urged the supreme court to limit federal judges’ ability to issue orders blocking the actions of his administration nationwide, writing on social media: “STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.” More

    • 125 Shares41 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge blocks Elon Musk’s Doge from accessing social security records

      by

      A federal judge on Thursday blocked Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) from accessing social security records as part of its hunt under Donald Trump for fraud and waste, calling the effort a “fishing expedition”.Judge Ellen Hollander granted a temporary restraining order that prevents Social Security Administration (SSA) workers from allowing Doge to have access to records that contain personally identifiable information.Musk, the world’s richest man and a huge political backer of Trump, has been tasked by the US president with slashing costs and employees at the federal government: a mission that has caused chaos and disruption across the US amid mass firings and huge numbers of government projects and contracts being canceled.The Trump administration says Doge has a 10-person team of federal employees at the SSA, seven of whom have been granted read-only access to agency systems or personally identifiable information.The lawsuit challenging Doge’s access to sensitive records was brought in February by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Alliance for Retired Americans and the American Federation of Teachers.Attorneys for the government argued the Doge access did not deviate significantly from normal practices inside the agency, where employees are routinely allowed to search its databases. But attorneys for the plaintiffs called the access unprecedented.In her ruling Hollander also instructed Doge to “disgorge and delete” any non-anonymized data it has obtained from the SSA since Trump took office, and said the agency cannot install or access any software in social security systems.Social security payments are a lifeline for millions of elderly Americans across the country and any effort to cut back the system is widely seen as a political minefield. However, Musk has claimed the system – without providing much convincing evidence – is rife with fraud. More

    • 138 Shares78 Views

      in US Politics

      White House calls judge challenging Trump deportation order a ‘Democrat activist’

      by

      The White House on Wednesday labeled the federal judge challenging the Trump administration on whether it defied his court order to halt flights deporting migrants without a hearing “a Democrat activist”.The press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, singled out by name at a White House press briefing federal judge James Boasberg, who weighed the legality of Donald Trump’s deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, and is now evaluating the government’s compliance.Boasberg had attempted over the weekend to prevent planes carrying the migrants from leaving, and has since demanded from the government details of the aircrafts’ exact itineraries to determine if they complied with his order. That argument is continuing in court, with the administration saying all flights took off before Boasberg’s order, while that is disputed and the judge has demanded a detailed itinerary. On Wednesday he threatened consequences if his order was violated, while giving the administration more time to present evidence.Leavitt said: “The judge in this case is essentially trying to say that the president doesn’t have the executive authority to deport foreign terrorists from our American soil. That is an egregious abuse of the bench. This judge cannot, does not have that authority.”She added: “And it’s very, very clear that this is an activist judge who is trying to usurp the president’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act. The president has this power, and that’s why this deportation campaign has continued, and this judge, Judge Boasberg is a Democrat activist.”Republican president George W Bush appointed Boasberg to the district of Columbia’s superior court, then Democratic president Barack Obama elevated him to the federal court.Boasberg is considered a centrist Democrat and was a roommate of US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, while both were studying at Yale University, the New York Times reported, as an aside.Meanwhile, Trump has repeated his declaration that he would not defy a court ruling, even as controversy swirls about whether his administration has already ignored several of them following a spate of negative judgments that threaten to block his governing agenda.Asked by Fox News on Tuesday night if he would ever defy a court ruling, Trump said he would not – but launched an attack on Boasberg, though without naming him.“I never did defy and I wouldn’t in the future, no. You can’t do that,” he said. “However, we have very bad judges, and these are judges that shouldn’t be allowed. I think at a certain point you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge.“The judge that we’re talking about is you look at his other rulings … He’s a lunatic.”Trump renewed his assault in a later post on his Truth Social platform: “If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our country because a radical left lunatic judge wants to assume the role of president, then our country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!”The comments followed a rare rebuke from John Roberts, the conservative-leaning chief justice of the US supreme court, who criticised demands by Trump and his supporters, including his wealthiest backer, Elon Musk, that Boasberg be impeached.Fears over the administration’s readiness to defy the courts – widely seen as the only obstacle to Trump’s rampant agenda in the absence of meaningful resistance from a Republican-ruled Congress – seemed likely to intensify after high-profile negative rulings on Tuesday.In one, a US district court judge, Theodore Chuang, ruled that Musk and his “department of government efficiency” (Doge) unit had violated the constitution in “multiple ways” in attempting to dismantle USAid.A separate ruling barred the Pentagon from enforcing Trump’s order banning transgender people from serving in the military, saying it was “soaked in animus”.Another order on Wednesday by Judge Jesse Furman rebuffed the administration’s effort to dismiss an attempt by Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist, to fight a deportation order and said the case must be heard in New Jersey, rather than Louisiana, where he is now detained.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn yet another case, the government has been forced to rehire more than 7,000 workers at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) who had not finished their probationary period after they were sent unsigned letters telling them they were being fired for poor work performances.The letters were sent despite an IRS lawyer warning officials that they contained “false statements” that amounted to “fraud”, ProPublica reported.Trump’s insistence that he would obey the courts is at odds with previous statements from the vice-president, JD Vance, who has suggested he should defy them.In a 2021 interview with Politico, Vance said Trump – if he were re-elected – should “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, [and] every civil servant in the administrative state … and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”The statement attributed to Jackson, president from 1829 to 1837, is widely believed to be apocryphal.Vance reiterated the sentiment in a social media post in February of this year following an earlier injunction against Doge.“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” he wrote. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”Legal commentators have warned that a president openly ignoring court orders could portend a slide into dictatorship.Michael Luttig, a former federal judge, told NBC that Trump had already “declared war on the rule of law”.“In the past few weeks, the president himself has led a full frontal assault on the constitutional rule of law, the federal judiciary, the American justice system and the nation’s legal profession,” Luttig said. “America is in a constitutional crisis.” More

    • 150 Shares88 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge blocks Trump’s ban on trans people serving in the military

      by

      A federal judge blocked Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender people from military service on Tuesday.US district judge Ana Reyes in Washington DC ruled that the president’s order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights.She delayed her order by three days to give the administration time to appeal.“The court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals. In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes,” Reyes wrote. “We should all agree, however, that every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect.”The White House didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.Army reserves 2nd Lt Nicolas Talbott, one of 14 transgender active-duty service members named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said he was holding his breath as he waited to find out if he would be separated from the military next week.“This is such a sigh of relief,” he said. “This is all I’ve ever wanted to do. This is my dream job, and I finally have it. And I was so terrified that I was about to lose it.”The judge issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military.On 27 January, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.In response to the order, Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.Plaintiffs’ attorneys contend Trump’s order violates transgender people’s rights to equal protection under the fifth amendment.Government lawyers argue that military officials have broad discretion to decide how to assign and deploy service members without judicial interference.Reyes said she did not take lightly her decision to issue an injunction blocking Trump’s order, noting: “Judicial overreach is no less pernicious than executive overreach.” But, she said, it was also the responsibility of each branch of government to provide checks and balances for the others, and the court “therefore must act to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day”.Thousands of transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1% of the total number of active-duty service members.In 2016, a defense department policy permitted transgender people to serve openly in the military. During Trump’s first term in the White House, the Republican issued a directive to ban transgender service members. The supreme court allowed the ban to take effect. Former president Joe Biden, a Democrat, scrapped it when he took office.Hegseth’s 26 February policy says service members or applicants for military service who have “a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service”.The plaintiffs who sued to block Trump’s order include an army reserves platoon leader from Pennsylvania, an army major who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan, and a Sailor of the Year award winner serving in the navy.“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed – some risking their lives – to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the military ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes wrote.Their attorneys, from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law, said transgender troops “seek nothing more than the opportunity to continue dedicating their lives to defending the Nation”.“Yet these accomplished servicemembers are now subject to an order that says they must be separated from the military based on a characteristic that has no bearing on their proven ability to do the job,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote. “This is a stark and reckless reversal of policy that denigrates honorable transgender servicemembers, disrupts unit cohesion, and weakens our military.” More

    • 138 Shares85 Views

      in US Politics

      Musk and Doge’s USAid shutdown likely violated US constitution, judge rules

      by

      A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that Elon Musk and the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) likely violated the US constitution by shutting down USAid, ordering the Trump administration to reverse some of the actions it took to dismantle the agency.The decision by US district judge Theodore Chuang was sweeping in its scope and marked a major setback for the administration’s signature takedown in its effort to bulldoze through the federal government.As part of an injunction that directed the Trump administration to reverse course, the judge halted efforts to terminate USAid officials and contractors, and reinstate former employees’ access to their government email, security and payment systems.The judge also compelled the administration to allow USAid to return to its currently shuttered headquarters at the Ronald Regan building in the event that the underlying case challenging the closure of the agency was successful. The administration is expected to appeal the ruling.At issue in the lawsuit, brought by more than two dozen unnamed former USAid employees in federal district court in Maryland, was Musk’s role in overseeing the deletion of the USAid website and the shut down of its headquarters.Chuang wrote in his 68-page opinion that Musk had likely violated the appointments clause of the constitution by effectively acting with the far-reaching powers of an “officer of the United States”, a designation that requires Senate confirmation.“If a president could escape appointments clause scrutiny by having advisers go beyond the traditional role of White House advisors who communicate the president’s priority to agency heads,” Chuang wrote, “the appointments clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality.”The Trump administration has said for weeks that the moves to dismantle USAid were carried out by the agency’s leaders – currently secretary of state Marco Rubio and acting administrator Pete Marocco – who were implementing recommendations from Musk.But Chuang rejected that contention with respect to the closure of USAid headquarters and the erasure of its website, saying that the administration provided no evidence that they were formally authorized by a USAid official.“Under these circumstances, the evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to defendants’ sweeping claim that Musk acted only as an advisor, Musk made the decisions to shutdown USAID’s headquarters and website even though he ‘lacked the authority to make that decision,’” Chuang wrote.The injunction follows six weeks of unprecedented turmoil at USAid, where 5,200 of 6,200 global programs were abruptly terminated, staff were locked out of facilities and systems, and employees reportedly received directives to destroy classified documents using shredders and “burn bags”.The agency’s workforce has been decimated from over 10,000 to just 611 employees, with Rubio characterizing the remaining programs as “set for absorption” by the state department – what he recently praised as “overdue and historic reform”.USAid’s headquarters became central to the controversy when multiple staffers told the Guardian in February that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials had been conducting extensive “walkthrough” tours to potentially take over the facility while agency employees remained barred entry.Politico later reported that CBP had officially taken over the office space and signed a lease agreement, according to a CBP spokesperson. The court order’s 14-day deadline for the administration to confirm USAid could return to its building suggested the space may have already been reallocated.The injunction also prohibits Doge from publishing unredacted personal information of USAid contractors and halts further dismantling actions, including terminations, contract cancellations, and permanent deletion of electronic records.That may already be a serious exposure problem for Musk and the rest of Doge, as an internal email obtained by the Guardian revealed how staff had been instructed to spend the day destroying classified “SECRET” documents – potentially breaking compliance with the Federal Records Act, which prohibits destroying government records before their designated retention period, which is typically two years. More

    • 150 Shares101 Views

      in US Politics

      Chief justice rebukes Trump for call to impeach judge hearing deportation case

      by

      John Roberts, the chief justice of the US supreme court, delivered a rare rebuke on Tuesday of Donald Trump after the US president demanded the impeachment of a federal judge who had issued an adverse ruling against the administration blocking the deportation of hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members.“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement. “The normal appellate process exists for that purpose.”The statement came hours after Trump assailed the chief US district judge in Washington DC, James Boasberg, for issuing a temporary restraining order halting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 that gives the president the power to conduct removals without due process.“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Trump wrote about Boasberg, labelling him a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge” and a “troublemaker”.View image in fullscreenTrump’s personal attack against Boasberg reflected his broader resentment at being increasingly constrained in recent weeks by court orders he believes are wrong, and his frustration at having his signature deportation policy be halted while subject to legal scrutiny.It also followed the administration’s attempt to have Boasberg thrown off the case, complaining in a letter to the clerk of the US court of appeals for the DC circuit – a bizarre way to force a recusal – on grounds that he had overreached by improperly turning the matter into a class-action lawsuit.According to the statute, the Alien Enemies Act can be invoked in the event of war, which only Congress can declare under the US constitution, or in the event of “predatory incursions” by state actors that amount to an invasion.The Trump administration’s use of the law rests on the second clause concerning incursions. In court filings, the administration has said Trump determined that the US was being invaded by members of the Tren de Aragua gang in Venezuela, which acted as a proxy for the Venezuelan government.Trump has the power as president to declare an incursion under the Alien Enemies Act, the filing said, and his decision was unreviewable by the courts following the US supreme court’s 1948 decision in Ludecke v Watkins, which said that whether someone was an enemy alien was up to the president.But Trump and his political allies appeared to have conflated two issues; federal courts can still review whether Trump satisfied the conditions to declare an incursion under the Alien Enemies Act in the first instance.The problem for the Trump administration is that in deciding Boasberg’s injunction blocking the deportation flights was unlawful, they ignored a verbal order from the judge at an emergency hearing on Saturday to turn around any deportation flights that had already departed.That opened a second legal battle for the administration where the justice department was left to argue at a hearing on Monday that the orders had been unclear and that, in any event, Boasberg’s authority to compel the planes to return vanished the moment they left US airspace.The extraordinary defenses by the administration suggested the White House took advantage of its own perceived uncertainty to do as it pleased, testing the limits of the judicial system to hold to account government officials set on circumventing adverse rulings.At the hearing, the administration claimed it did not follow Boasberg’s verbal instruction to turn around planes that had already departed, because it had not been repeated in the written injunction he issued at 7.25pm ET on Saturday.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Oral statements are not injunctions and the written orders always supersede whatever may have been stated in the record,” Abhishek Kambli, the deputy assistant attorney general for the justice department’s civil division, argued for the administration.The judge appeared unimpressed by that contention. “You felt that you could disregard it because it wasn’t in the written order. That’s your first argument? The idea that because my written order was pithier so it could be disregarded – that’s one heck of a stretch,” Boasberg said.Kambli also suggested that even if Boasberg had included the directive in his written injunction, by the time he issued the temporary restraining order the deportation flights had been outside the judge’s jurisdiction.Boasberg expressed incredulity at that argument, too, explaining that federal judges still have authority over US government officials who make the decisions about the planes and that he had had the authority to order their return, even if the planes had been outside US airspace.The Trump administration opened a third legal front in the Alien Enemies Act case, after it asked Boasberg in a late-night 35-page filing on Monday to dissolve the injunctions and dismiss the case.The administration is currently subject to two injunctions: one order preventing the deportation of five Venezuelans who filed the initial suit challenging the use of the Alien Enemies Act, and a second order from Boasberg that expanded the initial order to cover anyone being removed under the Alien Enemies Act.Administration lawyers affirmed in a separate filing on Tuesday that no deportation flights had departed the US after Boasberg’s written injunction had been issued on Saturday evening. Two flights took off before his 7.25pm ET order. One flight took off after, but that plane carried immigrants who were being deported under a different authority from the Alien Enemies Act. More