Importance Score: 85 / 100 🟢
Legal clashes between judges and the Trump administration intensified this week, as federal jurists voiced sharp criticism over the government’s courtroom conduct. Accusations of “bad faith” tactics, “disingenuous” arguments, and “inaccurate” claims underscored growing judicial frustration with the administration’s legal strategies in ongoing immigration and deportation cases.
Judges Question Trump Administration Tactics in Court
Federal judges expressed significant unease this week regarding the Trump administration’s legal defenses, with one jurist suggesting potential “bad faith” maneuvers, another alleging “disingenuous” justifications, and a third pointing to “inaccurate” assertions.
District Judge James Boasberg hinted at possible contempt proceedings to ensure governmental accountability for non-compliance with court orders.
Separately, in Maryland, a federal judge mandated the return of a deportee mistakenly sent to a high-security El Salvador prison.
Key Legal Developments of the Week
- Judicial Scrutiny of Administration’s Courtroom Conduct
- Contempt Threat Looms in Deportation Case
- Order to Return Deportee from El Salvador
- Challenges to Temporary Protected Status Termination
- Questions of Accuracy in Agency Closure Case
‘Bad Faith’ Allegations in Deportation Case
During a Thursday hearing, Judge Boasberg demanded comprehensive explanations regarding the administration’s failure to adhere to his directive halting deportations under President Trump’s Alien Enemies Act invocation.
These explanations were not forthcoming.
Following Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign’s assertion that “the government’s actions complied” with restraining orders against deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members on March 15, the judge articulated his discontent.
“It appears likely that this is incorrect, and that the government acted in bad faith,” Judge Boasberg stated.
He further commented that the administration’s operational approach suggested a lack of confidence in the legality of their actions.
The judge also mentioned the erroneous deportation of a Maryland resident to El Salvador.
“The urgency to act swiftly and avoid judicial intervention risked deporting individuals who should not have been on those planes,” Boasberg observed.
Judge Boasberg noted the timing of Trump’s AEA signing on March 14, with public disclosure only occurring on Saturday afternoon, after deportation preparations were underway.
He implied this timing might have been deliberate, designed to expedite deportations before legal challenges could be mounted.
Ensign responded that he lacked information on the matter.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers, representing individuals denying gang affiliation, learned of the executive order on March 14 and initiated legal action to block deportations. Judge Boasberg convened an emergency hearing on Saturday afternoon.
At that hearing, he mandated a temporary halt to AEA-related deportations and ordered the return of any flights already en route to the U.S. Ensign claimed ignorance of such flights, a stance he maintained on Thursday.
“I had no knowledge from my client that was the case,” Ensign affirmed, stating his “diligent efforts” to obtain information from relevant departments.
Subsequent revelations confirmed two flights were airborne during the hearing. The government declined to disclose specific timing details, citing “state secret” privilege. Justice Department lawyers argued the flights were outside U.S. airspace and therefore not subject to the return order.
Boasberg questioned Ensign regarding the decision not to redirect the planes. “I don’t know that,” Ensign repeated.
“Finding this information is pertinent as potential contempt proceedings advance,” the judge remarked.
Judge Boasberg indicated he would likely issue an order regarding probable cause for contempt proceedings next week.
At a Friday news conference, Attorney General Pam Bondi addressed questions about her involvement in “defying” Judge Boasberg’s order.
“I don’t believe anyone defied a judge’s order. This matter is currently before the court,” she responded.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene before Judge Boasberg on Tuesday to argue whether to permanently block deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua members under the AEA.
The administration has appealed the restraining order to the Supreme Court, asserting it infringes on presidential authority.
Judge Orders Return of Maryland Deportee
Judge Paula Xinis on Friday mandated the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal Maryland resident, by Monday. This followed a Justice Department admission that his deportation to El Salvador was in error.
An immigration judge had previously prohibited Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador in 2019, citing a high likelihood of persecution, despite government allegations of MS-13 gang affiliation.
Judge Xinis questioned attorney Erez Reuveni about the administration’s inability to request Garcia’s return from El Salvador. Reuveni conceded he had posed the same query and received an “unsatisfactory” response.
Reuveni also expressed ignorance regarding Garcia’s arrest, the deportation decision to El Salvador, and details of any agreement with the Salvadoran prison.
“The government chose to present no evidence,” he admitted.
‘Disingenuous’ Arguments in TPS Case
A California federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 350,000 Venezuelan nationals. This ruling marks another legal setback for the administration’s immigration policies.
Judge Edward Chen found the plaintiffs likely to succeed in claims that Homeland Security Secretary Noem’s “unprecedented” decision to prematurely end TPS protections was “unauthorized, arbitrary, capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.”
Noem had directed the TPS protections, initially set to expire late next year, to conclude on April 7.
The administration is appealing Judge Chen’s decision and requested a stay, arguing TPS termination does not equate to immediate deportation.
“[T]hat argument is disingenuous,” Judge Chen countered Friday, rejecting the stay request.
He referenced Noem’s public statement advocating for the removal of “dirtbags” during the TPS termination announcement.
Judge Chen asserted the “entire purpose” of premature TPS termination was to accelerate the removal of Venezuelan TPS holders ahead of the original schedule set by Secretary Mayorkas.
“The government has not guaranteed it will refrain from immediately removing Venezuelan TPS holders if the Court were to stay its postponement order,” Judge Chen added.
He cited the AEA case’s mistaken deportation as further justification not to pause his ruling.
The judge highlighted the “government mistakenly deported an individual with legal U.S. status to El Salvador and then claimed it could not rectify the error,” underscoring that removals in the TPS case “likely could not be ‘undone’ if Plaintiffs ultimately prevail.”
‘Inaccurate’ Claims in Agency Case
The Justice Department also sought a stay from a D.C. federal judge, requesting a pause on her injunction blocking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s closure.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s March 28 injunction included strong criticism, deeming the administration’s claims of not intending to close the agency “unreliable.”
Judge Jackson wrote that the government’s “eleventh-hour attempt to suggest the stop work order was not a stop work order was so disingenuous, the Court lacks confidence in the defense’s truthfulness.” These accusations of misrepresentation further strained the administration’s credibility in court.
She remained unimpressed with stay arguments on Thursday.
“[T]heir order description is at odds with the Order’s terms, and their ruling description is inaccurate as well,” she stated, denying the stay.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a partial temporary stay that same day.
“This administrative stay allows the court time to consider the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and should not be interpreted as a ruling on the motion’s merits,” the ruling clarified.