Despite a court order to halt deportations, the Trump administration sent hundreds of migrants on flights to El Salvador over the weekend, raising legal concerns.
# Judge's Deportation Order Ignored as Flights Depart to El Salvador
# Judge's Deportation Order Ignored as Flights Depart to El Salvador
Federal judge's directive on deportation flights left unheeded by the Trump administration.
In a controversial move, the Trump administration appears to have disregarded a federal judge's ruling that prohibited the use of a historic wartime law for deporting individuals without a formal hearing. The ruling, issued by Judge James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington, demanded that any deportation flights already in transit must return. However, this directive was overlooked as more than 200 migrants, including alleged gang members, were sent to El Salvador on three separate flights over the weekend.
A review by The New York Times of flight data revealed that none of these flights had arrived in El Salvador before the judge's order was made public, and one had not even taken off until after the order was electronically filed. In a court hearing held on Monday, Justice Department attorney Abhishek Kambli contended that because the judge’s decision had not been officially recorded in writing at the time, the administration had not contravened the order. Kambli argued that the written order lacked the explicit instruction to turn back any planes in transit. Furthermore, he asserted that the third plane's deportees were not affected by the judge's ruling.
The legal and ethical implications of this situation are substantial, especially given the context of deportation protocols and the humanitarian concerns surrounding the treatment of migrants. The government’s explanation has sparked debate about the judiciary's authority versus the executive branch's decisions related to immigration policy.
A review by The New York Times of flight data revealed that none of these flights had arrived in El Salvador before the judge's order was made public, and one had not even taken off until after the order was electronically filed. In a court hearing held on Monday, Justice Department attorney Abhishek Kambli contended that because the judge’s decision had not been officially recorded in writing at the time, the administration had not contravened the order. Kambli argued that the written order lacked the explicit instruction to turn back any planes in transit. Furthermore, he asserted that the third plane's deportees were not affected by the judge's ruling.
The legal and ethical implications of this situation are substantial, especially given the context of deportation protocols and the humanitarian concerns surrounding the treatment of migrants. The government’s explanation has sparked debate about the judiciary's authority versus the executive branch's decisions related to immigration policy.
