President Trump’s deportation flights spark debate over Constitutional Powers

Justice Boasberg in a US district Courtroom. Source: Valerie Plesch / Bloomberg

Before noon on March 15, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a written statement regarding deportation flights conducted under the Alien Enemies Act. Judge Boasberg ordered the government to halt the deportation of five individuals contesting the use of the Alien Enemies Act. However, the Trump administration moved forward, and the first deportation flight took off at approximately 5:26 p.m., followed by a second flight at 5:45 p.m. The court adjourned, and upon resuming, Judge Boasberg explicitly told the Department of Justice (DOJ) that “any plane…that is in the air needs to be returned to the United States.” The Trump Administration argued that Judge Boasberg’s written order, filed at 7:26 p.m., did not mandate the DOJ to turn the planes around. Thus, they are claiming this written order as the “definitive decision in the case.” However, there is no precedent differentiating a judge's verbal and written orders. Even so, a judge's oral orders appear in the court transcripts and could be viewed as “written.”

These two planes deported over 260 immigrants, 137 of whom were removed under the Alien Enemies Act, a law passed in 1798 granting wartime authority to deport individuals who are citizens of enemy nations. Until now, there was no precedent for this act to be used in peacetime. The administration's use of the act raises questions about whether Venezuela can truly be considered an enemy nation. While tensions with the country are often high, there are no active war threats between the U.S. and Venezuela. However, President Trump is specifically targeting members of Venezula’s Tren de Aragua gang, individuals deemed a threat to American safety. 

This fiasco has left Washington— and the nation—contemplating whether the administration is openly defying judicial orders. Recently, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled 2-1 to uphold a ban preventing the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act. Federal Judge Millett stated that the administration's actions threaten due process rights. Meanwhile, President Trump and Elon Musk have taken this time to attack the judiciary. Musk declared, “The only way to restore the rule of the people is to impeach federal judges.” President Trump has echoed similar sentiments, claiming “crooked Judges should be impeached” and continued to call Judge Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic.” These attacks sparked a rare public response from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” 

The DOJ’s actions have also raised concern, as they asked a federal appeals court to remove Judge Boasberg from the case. Already, the DOJ tried to cancel the hearing, calling it a waste of time since they had no “additional information about the deportation flights.” This lack of cooperation with a U.S. district judge is troubling, highlighting a blatant disregard for the separation of powers and a lack of respect for the US judiciary system.

Ultimately, it appears the administration's goal was to pressure Venezuela into taking its citizens back. Now that Venezuelans have been sent to a notorious gang prison in El Salvador, President Nicolás Maduro is facing immense pressure to get his people home. As of Monday, March 23, Venezuela stated they will resume repatriation flights. 

Overall, President Trump achieved his goal: deporting Venezuelans from the United States, keeping the public engaged by drawing attention to himself, and making a broad statement of his authority. However, this victory comes at a cost to our legal system. The administration is creating a dangerous precedent — defying a judge's orders and manipulating an ancient law like the Alien Enemies Act to be used as the executive pleases. To make matters worse, the administration is continually refusing to disclose information regarding the flights, marking 10 days since Judge Boasberg’s original request for information. Beyond the Alien Enemies Act, the DOJ is using a States Privilege doctrine that allows “the executive branch to block the use of evidence in court,” citing the risk of breaching national security. However, it is equally plausible that their lack of compliance also violates the separation of powers.

Throughout this controversy, it is clear that constitutional rights and the separation of powers within our government are at risk. The administration is testing the limits of its power, pushing an agenda while public officials are busy arguing over legality and possible ways to reverse the administration's actions. While the nation is distracted by the spectacle, President Trump is achieving his goals, such as getting Venezuela to take its migrants back and keeping the promises he campaigned on.