In a dramatic courtroom showdown, a radical Obama-appointed judge, James Boasberg, stood toe-to-toe with DOJ lawyers over his controversial order to halt the deportation of Venezuelan gang members. This heated exchange unfolded on Monday, spotlighting the ongoing struggle between the judiciary and the Trump administration.
The fracas began on Saturday morning when Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), halting the deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act. This move was backed by far-left groups like the ACLU and Democracy Forward, desperate to shield illegal aliens from deportation.
Later, the judge intensified his stance by mandating the return of planes already deporting members of the dangerous Tren de Aragua gang, with a stern oral order to “return to the United States however that is accomplished,” as reported by Politico. At the time, two flights were heading to Central America.
El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele did not hold back, mocking Judge Boasberg as the flights, carrying approximately 300 Venezuelan aliens and gang members, landed in El Salvador. The Trump DOJ quickly updated the court, asserting that these criminal aliens were outside U.S. jurisdiction when the order was issued.
During Monday’s hearing, the DOJ fiercely contested Boasberg’s jurisdiction over international airspace, arguing that he had no authority to command the planes’ return once they had left U.S. soil. Despite these arguments, Boasberg insisted on his “equitable powers” to intervene midair.
The Federalist’s senior legal reporter, Margot Cleveland, captured the judge’s rigorous questioning:
JUDGE: These are questions I want answers for & why you won’t me:
1. How many planes departed US on Saturday carrying anyone based on Proclamation;
2. How many people in each category;
3. What foreign country/countries did they land;
4. Time took off & where; time you…— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland)
March 17, 2025
The DOJ countered, stating a sworn declaration was unnecessary as the government had complied with the order. They emphasized that the planes had already left U.S. territory.
2/ Judge asks Plaintiff if there are other questions that I should be asked?
Direct government to provide sworn declaration was subject to Proclamation to make sure government isn’t basing it on Article II and saying that is basis.
DOJ: None of this is necessary because we…— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland)
March 17, 2025
Judge Boasberg argued his orders had extraterritorial reach, challenging the DOJ’s stance. The DOJ maintained that any action was completed once the planes left U.S. airspace, with Boasberg countering his equitable power could demand their return.
3/ DOJ: Points out oral order is not the injunction. And transcript said saying I would memorialize gave DOJ good faith basis to base to wait for written order.
Judge: Quoting says you’re saying “I’m telling you immediately turn planes around.”
DOJ: Minute order controls.
Judge:…— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland)
March 17, 2025
In a final demand, Boasberg insisted on a sworn declaration confirming no further removals and the status of a third flight. The DOJ has until Tuesday to respond, while seeking an appeal court’s intervention.
7/ DOJ: How many subject to Proclamation is national security. Judge: You tell me wait.
Judge: Confirm no one else will be removed from United States.
DOJ: Yes.
Judge: Sworn Declaration that third flight was not subject to Proclamation; and why you can’t answer my questions and…— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland)
March 17, 2025
