In a bold move, the Department of Justice (DOJ) once again stood firm against Judge James Boasberg’s demands for sensitive national security information. This standoff is part of an ongoing case linked to President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. White House advisor Stephen Miller highlighted on CNN that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the President’s removals under this act are beyond judicial scrutiny.
Despite this precedent, Judge Boasberg ordered the Trump Administration over the weekend to recall planes deporting dangerous members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. However, the Trump DOJ clarified in a Sunday update to Boasberg that these criminal aliens were already outside of U.S. territory when the order was issued.
Backing their stance, the DOJ argued that Judge Boasberg holds no jurisdiction over international airspace.
Judge Boasberg has demanded the Trump DOJ to answer several critical questions by Tuesday:
- How many planes left the U.S. on Saturday under the Proclamation?
- How many individuals were aboard, categorized by type?
- Which foreign countries did these planes land in?
- Details of departure: time and location, the moment they exited U.S. airspace, landing times in each country, and the time of transfer into foreign custody.
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
In a resolute response on Tuesday, the DOJ reiterated its refusal to release sensitive national security details during a public hearing. They stated, “The Court also ordered the Government to address the form in which it can provide further details about flights that left the United States before 7:25 PM. The Government maintains that there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate, because even accepting Plaintiffs’ account of the facts, there was no violation of the Court’s written order (since the relevant flights left U.S. airspace, and so their occupants were “removed,” before the order issued), and the Court’s earlier oral statements were not independently enforceable as injunctions. The Government stands on those arguments.”
The showdown continues as the DOJ upholds its stand on maintaining the confidentiality of national security details, emphasizing the importance of protecting American interests.
