masto.ai is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A general Mastodon server for all languages.

Administered by:

Server stats:

2.2K
active users

In a brazen display of defiance, ’s filed papers less than two hours before the 5PM hearing, telling Judge James E. that there was no reason for anyone to come to court because the administration was not going to provide any further information about the flights.

storage.courtlistener.com/reca

In another remarkable move, the DOJ wrote a letter to the federal appeals court that sits over Judge , asking it to remove him from the case entirely given what they falsely described as his “highly unusual & improper procedures.”

The two government filings came on a day of extraordinary resistance to the court by the admin, which has said that it has not violated Boasberg’s order stopping the flights, but also that he had no authority to issue it in the first place.

Nonilex

Judge responded to ’s Monday motion to vacate the 5PM hearing:

The Court ORDERS that Defendants' 24 Motion to Vacate is DENIED. The hearing will proceed as scheduled. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/17/2025.

So, it should start in about 5 minutes.

ICYMI, this stmnt from ’s US AG is incredible:

"Tonight, a DC trial judge supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans.…This order disregards well-established authority regarding Trump's power, & it puts the public & law enforcement at risk. The DOJ is undeterred in its efforts to work w/the WH, the DHS, & all of our partners to stop this invasion & Make America Safe Again.”

The issue is compliance w/the & has nothing to do with “support” of terrorists.

🧵 coverage of Judge ’s hearing via Aaron Reichlin-Melnick:

Chief Judge Boasberg begins the hearing. Lee Gelernt & others from the are there in person, along with others from .

For the government, appearing are Abishek Kambli & August Flentje.

begins by saying today's hearing is not about the merits of his TROs issued on Sat. He says the sole reason he's here is fact-finding about the govt's w/his orders. He notes the govt asked the DC Circuit to stay this hearing & asked that he be removed.

🧵

says he wants to focus on the timelines involved. He says, again, "I just want to obtain some facts here, I'm not planning to issue any rulings about the government's conduct today, it's just to get information." He says the ACLU can raise any objections to the facts if they have them

🧵

gets the to confirm the 5 individual named plaintiffs, which were the subject of his first TRO, are still here.

Boasberg asks "How many planes departed the US at any point on Saturday carrying any people being deported solely on the basis of the proclamation."

DOJ refuses to answer!!

🧵

says that the only thing they are authorized to say is that the two flights which took off after the written order were not relevant to this case (which I guess is saying they had no one subject to the on board?). He then claims & diplomacy mean he won't answer further.

🧵

is now asking about a third flight identified by the that they were asking about, which is I believe what the last bit was about. He gets the to confirm no one on that plane was subject to the proclamation.

🧵

is now questioning the government about the other 2 flights, which the government itself somewhat mentioned in its orders.

The government continues to refuse to disclose any information. Boasberg asks why it can't be said outside of the public, & the attorney refuses to say why.

🧵

points out he gets classified info all the time "Why are you showing up today & not having answers as to why you can't disclose it?”

He points out that if the answers are classified, fine, just tell him.

Boasberg remains incredulous at the fact that the govt won't even tell him why they won't tell him how many flights took off. says all he can say is that the flights took off before his order, & he suggests that's not relevant to .

🧵

cites case law that the govt is required to provide a clear reason before refusing to provide him classified or national security info.

He asks if the can provide in writing tomorrow by noon what their position is communicating the info to him.

Boasberg to the DOJ: "Let me just tell you the questions that I wish you could answer, & that I will be asking you.”

🧵

’s questions for :

1. How many planes departed the US at any time on Saturday carrying any people being deported solely on the basis of the proclamation?

2. How many people in that category were on those planes?

3. What foreign countries did those planes land in?

4. What time did the planes leave the US?

5. What time did they enter foreign airspace?

6. What time did they land?

7. What time were those individuals transferred into foreign custody?

🧵

now asks Lee Gelernt of the is there are any other questions that should be asked, & asks him if he objects to the timing of a hearing tomorrow at noon to explain why they won't tell him the information.

Lee says "we're getting very close" to a .

the audio is unclear Lee's comments aren’t all relayed. He says it appears there is an admission that there may have been a flight which left after the order? the third flight?

🧵

: "The inquiry here is 'have they obeyed my order?'”

Boasberg notes says they're representing no one on the third flight was subject to the , so Lee asks that they submit a sworn declaration.

Lee notes the govt is distinguishing between the AEA proclamation & a claimed inherent presidential authority, & asks for more on that.

🧵

at first says they would be willing to submit a declaration but goes back their argument that they didn't violate the order, but then pushes back & says they won't until they can argue that they don't have to disclose any info at all.

asks for that to be part of noon tmw filing

Boasberg moves on to the core issue:

Did the admin violate the court’s order?

🧵

argues that the written order issued 40mins later supersedes anything said orally, & says that the DOJ "on good faith" only viewed the written order as binding, not what said in court.

Boasberg notes he said “you shall inform your clients immediately” ... that any planes that are going to take off, or are in the air, shall be turned around….

He asks "You're telling me your first argument" is that didn't apply because it wasn't in the minute order?

🧵

again gets to confirm that they are arguing that because he didn't include every word of that language in the written order, they could simply ignore what he said.

DOJ lawyer says that's what his client [] has instructed him to argue. Boasberg is incredulous & keeps pushing back.

🧵

says "so when I said directly turn the plane around, you read it because my written order was pithier, this could be disregarded? That's a heck of a stretch."

then basically says that's what they're arguing, then pivots to the international waters argument.

Boasberg explores the argument about being outside the US. He asks whether the DOJ is arguing that because the plane was outside US airspace, his order did not apply.

🧵

says “no”, "removal" had already happened because they had already left US airspace.

says "the equitable power of the United States courts is not so limited," saying it's "pretty clear" that even if the enjoined acts were outside the territory of the US, you can't violate it.

"What argument do you have the equity stops at this country's borders"?

🧵

attorney begins saying the generally doesn't apply extraterritorially, and stops him, emphasizing that the question here is about his own equitable powers, not the Immigration and Nationality Act.

DOJ says the people had physically been removed so he no longer had jurisdiction.

🧵

responds to that: "Isn't the response what you think is unconstitutional or improper or illegal injunction to seek modification or appeal?"

says "when the planes are in the sky and there is sensitive national security, that's not a call that can be made."

🧵

@Nonilex

"DOJ lawyer says that's what his client [#Trump] has instructed him to argue."

"I am only following orders"

@nemeciii @Su_G @FinchHaven @Nonilex Unfortunately they are probably so uneducated that they won’t get the reference

@nemeciii @FinchHaven @Nonilex There's some very old Germans who might want to comment on that.

@nemeciii @FinchHaven @Nonilex "Ich war nur Befehle befolgen."

Didn't work in 1945, and it won't work now.

@FinchHaven Asinine, unprepared...behold the intellects of #MAGA! Just self-important cowards all the way down. @Nonilex

@Nonilex

"That's what Trump instructed"? JFC

The man breaks his oath of office dozens of times a day.

@Nonilex
This is known as the "Pleading for mercy from the court b/c you're an orphan after murdering your parents" defense. 🤦‍♂️

@Nonilex WAIT, W's council HAT???/ DOJ lawyer says that's what his client [#Trump] has instructed him to argue. THE DOJ IS NOT THE president's council!!!! #StoptrumpNow

@Nonilex it's obviously time to jail some lawyers for contempt.

@Nonilex the boot is pressing harder on the throat of America, on our throats.

@Nonilex
TdA is represented by ACLU? Do they mean the accused terrorists? How are they a danger if you've got them under ICE control? Why would you not provide your evidence for their participation in criminal activities related to this terrorist group?

@Nonilex Alt-Facts. And the morons will gobble this up the same as all else.

@Nonilex How come the media says "Tren de Aragua terrorists" rather than "**alleged** Tren de Aragua terrorists"?

Can you imagine one of these guys suing the media outlet for defamation? Without that magic disclaimer word "alleged" such an action is quite possible, and could result in damages being awarded.

@Nonilex Many of them do not even have criminal records. This is authoritarianism 101. Followed by the usual gaslighting.

@Nonilex There is only one Law now: Trump.

Follow the beloved elected leader. Heil Trump!

Welcome to the 4th Reich!