President Donald Trump’s government communicated a federal judge on Monday night that he would not reveal more information about two flights with Venezuelan migrants who sent El Salvador this month, despite the court order to make the planes return, declaring that doing so would endanger state secrets.
The measure exacerbated the growing conflict between the government and the judge – and, by extension, the Federal Judiciary – in a case that legal experts fear that a constitutional crisis is precipitating.
For almost 10 days, Judge, James E. Boasberg, of the Federal District Court of Washington, has been trying that the Trump government provide information about both flights to determine if the officials allowed them to continue towards El Salvador violating their order to return to the United States.
But, in a clear act of challenge, the Department of Justice told Boasberg that giving more information about flights – which, according to Trump’s government, transported members of a Venezuelan street band called Train of Aragua – “undercut or prevent future anti -terrorist operations.”
“The court has all the data to address the issues of compliance with itself,” the department wrote in a letter. “More interference in the Executive Power would mean dangerous and totally unjustified damage in the separation of powers regarding diplomatic and national security issues that the court lacks competence to address.”
The privilege of State Secret is a legal doctrine that can allow the Executive Power to block the use of evidence in the courts – sometimes to suspend entire judgments – when he affirms that litigating those matters in public hearing could reveal harmful information to national security.
However, the usual thing is that the Executive Power confidentially provide the judge with a detailed description of the sensitive evidence to demonstrate why they are too sensitive to discuss them in public hearing. The measure of the Trump government is extraordinary, partly because it refuses to provide information to Boasberg – who used to preside over the country’s national security surveillance court – even privately and in a safe installation for the management of classified information.
In fact, the government has not even affirmed that the information in question is classified.
Instead, he has submitted statements by Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem, Secretaries of State and National Security, in which they claim that sharing the information with a court would endanger national security and foreign policy, among other things making it less likely that foreign partners trust that the Trump government will secretly maintain confidential negotiations and operational details, and feeding the public speculation on the matter.
The stubborn response of the Department of Justice to Boasberg occurred on the same day that he reaffirmed his initial order that prohibited Trump’s government from using a war law, the Law of Foreign Enemies, to deport expeditially dozens of Venezuelan migrants who considered members of the Aragua train.
The judge’s order said that the blockade should be maintained so that migrants had the opportunity to challenge the accusations of belonging to the band before being expelled from the country by plane to a prison in El Salvador.
Also on Monday, a Federal Court of Appeals of Washington held an almost two -hour hearing on the request of Trump’s government to cancel the underlying order of Boasberg, citing many of the same issues.
The three judges panel did not issue an immediate ruling. But during the interrogation, a lawyer of the Department of Justice acknowledged that if the court turned back to the order of Boasberg, the government could immediately resume the transfer of people to the Salvadoran prison.
From the moment in which Boasberg, president of the Federal District Court of Washington, issued his original order to suspend deportation flights on March 15, Trump and his allies have accused him of extraimiting himself in his authority by interfering with the president’s prerogative to direct the foreign affairs.
The central issue of the case also revolves around whether Trump himself overwhelmed by ignoring the limits established in the text of the Foreign Enemies Law and in the Constitution on when and how deportations can be carried out in time of war.
The law, approved in 1798, gives the government broad freedoms during an invasion or in times of war to summarily gather subjects of a “hostile nation” over 14 years and expel them from the country with few or null procedural guarantees.
The Government has repeatedly affirmed that Venezuelan migrants in question are members of the Aragua train and must be considered subjects of a hostile nation because Trump has said they acted under the direction of the Venezuelan government.
The White House has also insisted that the arrival of dozens of band members to the United States constitutes an invasion or a “predatory incursion” under the terms of the law, which can activate the powers of a president to deport in times of war even without a declared war.
The lawyers of Venezuelan migrants have argued that the law cannot be used against the members of the Aragua train because the band is not a government and their activities do not equal an invasion. In particular, the American intelligence community released last month an evaluation in which it concluded that the band is not under the control of the Venezuelan government, contrary to what Trump has since sustained.
The lawyers have also questioned that many of the migrants to which the Trump government has accused of belonging to the Aragua Train are really members of the band. They have argued that Venezuelans should be able to challenge those determinations before being expelled from the country.
When Boasberg initially suspended the flights, he said that his decision was based on both the lack of procedural guarantees that migrants had received and on the most general issue of whether Trump’s use of the Law of Foreign Enemies really adjusted to this situation.
But by keeping the interdiction standing, the judge wrote that it had been based solely on the question of due process. He added that he did not need to “resolve the thorny issue of whether the Judiciary has the authority to evaluate” Trump’s claim that the foreign enemies law can be legitimately used against the Aragua train as a group.
During the hearing held on Monday before the panel of the Court of Appeals, two of the judges seemed to agree that the migrants that the Government wants to expel under the law could go to the courts to challenge if they were really members of the Aragua train.
But it was not clear how those challenges could be.
One of the judges, Patricia Millett, appointed by the Democrats, was skeptical of the government’s position that the court had to suspend the Boasberg interdiction.
He interrogated a lawyer from the Department of Justice, suggesting that if Venezuelans could be deported without due process, then anyone – including herself – could simply be declared a threat to national security and be expelled from the country. And Millett said that even German citizens detained by virtue of the Law of Foreign Enemies during World War II had the opportunity to allege in audiences that the law did not apply to them.
“The Nazis received a better deal by virtue of the Law of Foreign Enemies,” he said.
A second judge, Justin Walker, appointed by the Republicans, agreed that migrants could challenge if they were under Trump’s invocation of the war law, but was skeptical to allow Boasberg’s order to remain in force for technical reasons.
He repeatedly suggested that, if the migrants wanted to challenge their expulsion, they should not do it in Washington, but in the places where they were detained, such as Texas.
The third judge of the court, Karen Henderson, appointed by the Republicans, said almost anything at the hearing.
The invocation by the Justice Department of the State Secret Privilege was only his last effort to block Boasberg’s attempts to understand if the government had violated his order.
Last week, just a few hours before an audience in which they were going to have to talk about the flight, department lawyers asked that the procedure be canceled. On the same day, they took the even bolder step to try to make Boasberg be removed from the case.
But the invocation of the privilege of state secret in this context was a new level of aggression.
The Supreme Court first recognized the privilege of State Secret in a 1953 decision that approved the retention of information provided there was a “reasonable danger” of exposing information that should not be disclosed for national security reasons.
After the Bush government frequently invoked the privilege of state secret to block demands on issues such as torture and telephone listeners without a court order, the Department of Justice in the Obama Age imposed new limits on this power.
The policy demanded that the department reject a request to use the privilege if the officials decided that the motivation to do so was to “hide infractions of the law, inefficiency or administrative error”, “avoid shameful situations” or block information “whose dissemination would not be reasonably expected to cause significant damage to national security.”
Subscriber content
Attorney General Pam Bondi told Boasberg in a letter that was satisfied that the new invocation of the privilege by the Trump government was “properly supported and justified.”