Posted on 03/15/2025 12:41:59 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
A radical federal judge has moved to block former President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure America’s borders and protect its citizens.
On Saturday, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, an Obama-appointed leftist, granted a temporary restraining order to stop the Trump administration from deporting thousands of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act—an action well within the executive’s constitutional authority.
This outrageous ruling comes after far-left groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, rushed to court in a desperate bid to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.
Their lawsuit, J.G.G. v. Trump, seeks to upend Trump’s lawful enforcement of immigration laws, arguing that invoking the Alien Enemies Act—a wartime measure historically used to remove hostile foreign nationals—is somehow “unprecedented” and “unlawful” during peacetime.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
The DC judicial circuit should be dissolved, and no federal judicial circuits should be within 500 miles of DC. There is no way politics and partisanship are not affecting far too many of these judicial edicts. Furthermore, consistent rulings with little or no Constitutional basis should be the red flag that gets these demi-gods removed. Some people simply cannot responsibly discharge duties within the parameters of their authority due to their overwhelming arrogance.
The irony is that they will scream “Constitutional crisis!” if he ignores the judge, never realizing that the judge created the constitutional crisis by butting into the executive branch’s authority.
Re: 102 - Which law operates in the case of the people detained?
Alien Enemy Act or Immigration and Nationality Act?
“Stop the Hate and End the Fear; Kick Illegals Out of Here!”
“They” can scream all they want.
We won.
Elections have consequences, as the fraudulent Muslim president reminded us.
Why does it not surprise anyone that you are getting your information from a communist source?
Oh good grief, grow up.
It's called discernment - being able to read information even from sources that one may not agree with or normally use to determine if there is information that is useful in understanding an issue.
As this hearing took place on a Friday the Complaint was not yet in courtlistener. So I searched to find the original complaint. Amazing, huh?
And look, here is the case in courtlistener:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/
And better yet, here is the Complaint:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.1.0_2.pdf
So, let me know what the difference is between the Complaint on courtlistener and the one I posted. I'll wait.
mucchi, indeed.
I knew exactly what Furry’s reply to you would be, before I clicked on your ping, Bikk.
I think its repertoire consists of two ... no, make that three come backs....
Oh, grow up.
LOL!
Do better.
And, no .... it does NOT surprise me that lil furry gets his info from a commie source. Birds of feather ....
Your traitorism (word specifically created for you) has been obvious for a LONG time.
You really should go find a site that matches your politics.
FreeRepublic definitely isn’t it.
I see.
So the fact that complaint at that time was available on that web-site and no where else means...
that the complaint should not be viewed or a link posted to it...
Because, reasons... I guess.
Think about how ignorant that is. That posters should not know what the Complaint specifics are, but still comment on it.
Are you aware that crack conservative news site TGP also linked to that website for the Complaint (so TGP is improving a little):
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/radical-activist-judge-blocks-trumps-plan-invoke-alien/
because the Complaint, let alone the case was not posted to courtlistener?
Good grief. It’s not ignorance but willful ignorance.
If you think it’s a good look, have at it!
"no where else"
It was not available anywhere else because of the late Friday filing and hearing.
But I guess because of that, the Complaint should not be read, posted, linked to, etc. Because reasons.
Like I said, willful ignorance.
"willful ignorance."
LOL!
Good luck!
Fury is a Dan Crenshaw fanboy too.
So, not surprised.
Ny the way, Blinky McEyepoke can go eat the community note on Twitter!
Now that you mention it.. I could see him on his knees for the RINO traitor.
Like I said, not surprised at the link to commie sources.
Trump’s attorney should have told the judge that if they had turned back then the plane would have run out of fuel over the Gulf of America. He could have added that there was sufficient parachutes for the guards and pilots but storage space was limited so........
Busted … again!
Has anyone, ANYONE - read the complaint?
Yes, on the 15th.
I quoted Docket entries #12 and #17, and the judge's MINUTE ORDER here yesterday:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4304546/posts?page=185#185
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2025cv00766/278436
A free docket report is available at Justia. The Justia docket currently only goes to #16.
The up to date docket report may be obtained from PACER. The last docket report I downloaded from PACER is at #24.
The COMPLAINT which is Document 1 would have appeared on PACER first.
Docket #21 is PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE.
Header and signature pages omitted. Precise formatting not retained. All emphasis as in original.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICEOn March 16, 2025, Defendants submitted a Notice explaining why they believed their actions implementing the Proclamation were consistent with this Court’s Temporary Restraining Orders. However, in addition to the numerous media reports and publicly available data suggesting that Defendants may have violated the Court’s Orders, the government’s own Notice raises serious questions. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the Court seek immediate clarification from Defendants, in one or more sworn declarations, about their conduct regarding this Court’s Orders.
First, the government’s letter states that the Court’s Order was issued at 7:26 pm on Saturday March 15. But that was the time the Court’s written Order appeared on PACER. During the Saturday hearing, between approximately 6:45 pm ET and 6:48 pm ET, this Court orally and unambiguously directed the government to turn around any planes carrying individuals being removed pursuant to the AEA Proclamation:
[T]hat you shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States,- - - - -
[2]
but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that's accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately. Tr. 43.
That oral Order of course carries no less weight than the Court’s written Order.
Second, Plaintiffs remain extremely concerned that, regardless of which time is used, the government may have violated the Court’s command. The government states that “some gang members subject to removal under the Proclamation had already been removed from United States territory under the Proclamation before the issuance of this Court’s second order. (emphasis added).1 That phrasing strongly suggests that the government has chosen to treat this Court’s Order as applying only to individuals still on U.S. soil or on flights that had yet to clear U.S. airspace as of 7:26pm (the time of the written Order). If that is how the government proceeded, it was a blatant violation of the Court’s Order.
Whether or not the planes had cleared U.S. territory, the U.S. retained custody at least until the planes landed and the individuals were turned over to foreign governments. And the Court could not have been clearer that it was concerned with losing jurisdiction and authority to order the individuals returned if they were handed over to foreign governments, not with whether the planes had cleared U.S. territory or had even landed in another country.
THE COURT: Okay. But then I would assume that means that they [the five named Plaintiffs] are either not on the planes or that they will not be removed from the planes
__________
1 The government refers to the “second” order to distinguish it from the TRO order issued the morning of March 15 as to just the named Plaintiffs.
- - - - - - - - - -
[3]
and will be brought back once the planes land in El Salvador. Is that fair? Tr. 5 (emphasis added).THE COURT: Again, just so we are clear, if planes have already landed and discharged their occupants, aside from the five plaintiffs I enjoined earlier, then this order -- I don't have jurisdiction to require their return. (Tr. 44, discussing class TRO) (emphasis added).
And based on publicly available information, it appears that there were at least two flights that took off during the hearing but landed even after this Court’s written Order, meaning that Defendants could have turned the plane around without handing over individuals subject to the Proclamation and this Court’s TRO. Moreover, although that information was obviously in Defendants’ possession, Plaintiffs nonetheless emailed counsel for the government with the information about these two flights immediately after the hearing concluded.
1. GlobalX Flight 6143 departed Harlingen, Texas at 5:26 p.m. EDT and landed in Comayagua, Honduras at 7:36 p.m. EDT.2
2. GlobalX Flight 6145 departed Harlingen, Texas at 5:45 p.m. EDT and landed in San Salvador, El Salvador at 8:02 p.m. EDT.3
Third, even if only the written Order is relevant, and even if the Court had only meant to order Defendants to turn the planes around if they were still in U.S. territory (neither of which is plausible), Plaintiffs still have serious concerns about the government’s actions. According to at least one media report, one of the planes departed the U.S. after the written Order was issued.
__________
2 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/GXA6143
3 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/GXA6145/history/20250315/1930Z/KHRL/MSLP C
- - - - - - - - -
[4]
See Marianne LeVine, et al., “White House Official Says 137 Immigrants Deported Under Alien Enemies Act,” Wash. Post (Mar. 16, 2024),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/03/16/alien-enemies-act-venezuela-elsalvador-prison/.
That account is consistent with the publicly available flight data indicating that GlobalX Flight 6122 departed Harlingen, Texas at 7:37 p.m. EDT and landed in Comayagua, Honduras at 9:46 p.m. EDT. Plaintiffs also informed Defendants about this flight immediately after the hearing.4
Beyond the concerns raised by the government’s own letter, there has been significant media reporting that Defendants may have defied the Court’s Order. Axios, for instance, reported that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem chose not to turn the planes around.5 Officials claimed that they could ignore this Court’s order because the planes were already over international waters.
The Axios article was later updated with a statement from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, which said: “The Administration did not 'refuse to comply' with a court order. The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist TdA aliens had already been removed from U.S. territory. The written order and the Administration's actions do not conflict. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear — federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the President's conduct of foreign affairs, his authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, and his core Article II powers to remove foreign alien terrorists from U.S. soil and
__________
4 Two more flights, GlobalX Flight 6144 and GlobalX Flight 6123, departed Comayagua, Honduras and landed in San Salvador, El Salvador well after the Court’s orders. On information and belief, these may have been continuations of either Flight 6143 or 6122. The government should provide information on these flights.
5 https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judge-deport-venezuelans.
- - - - - - - - - -
[5]
repel a declared invasion. A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.” See also “Trump administration ignores judge's order to turn deportation planes around: Sources,” Katherine Faulders, ABC News,
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-ignores-judges-orderbring- deportation-planes/story?id=119857181;
Marianne LeVine, et al., “White House Official Says 137 Immigrants Deported Under Alien Enemies Act,” Wash. Post (Mar. 16, 2024),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/03/16/alien-enemies-act-venezuela-elsalvador-prison/
(interviewing a White House official: “‘We believe this is a baseless legal ruling no matter when the flights took off,’ the official said, adding that the fact that two of the three deportation flights were out of the country before the judge’s order ‘strengthens our case.’”); Mattathias Schwartz, “With Deportations, Trump Steps Closer to Showdown with Judicial Branch,” N.Y. Times (Mar. 16, 2025),
http://nytimes.com/2025/03/16/us/constitutionalcrisis.html.
Finally, some of the public comments made by Defendants and the President of El Salvador reinforce Plaintiffs’ concerns. For example, on March 16, at 7:46 a.m. EDT, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele tweeted a New York Post headline reading, “Fed judge orders deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gangbangers to return to US, blocks Trump from invoking Alien Enemies Act,” and added the comment “Oopsie … Too late .” Secretary of State Marco Rubio re-tweeted this post from his personal X account.
In sum, given the careful phrasing of the government’s letter, the publicly available data, the government’s own statements, and the numerous media reports that the government may have chosen not to abide by the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs request that the Court immediately
- - - - - - - - -
[6]
direct the government to submit one or more sworn declarations from individuals with direct knowledge of the facts clarifying the following:
1) whether any flight with individuals subject to the Proclamation took off after either the Court’s written or oral Orders were issued;
2) whether any flight with individuals subject to the Proclamation landed after either the Court’s written or oral Orders were issued;
3) whether any flight with individuals subject to the Proclamation was still in the air after either the Court’s written or oral Orders were issued; and
4) whether custody of any individuals subject to the Proclamation was transferred to a foreign country after either the Court’s written or oral Orders were issued.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.