Anna Bower & Katie Phang are live posting the Boasberg/Venezuela/Trump hearing. I'm combining their posts here
1/..
HAPPENING NOW: Judge Boasberg is presiding over hearing regarding whether the Trump admin violated court order temp barring removal of Venezuelan migrants.
He kicks off by questioning DOJ about timeline re: when flights took off on Saturday.
He advises parties that he intends to conduct fact-finding today to determine whether the Trump Administration defied his court orders.
2/ Atty Gabriel Malor, too. More:
Gov't attorney then waffles, says he doesn't have authorization to disclose the information even to the judge.
Now gov't attorney Kambli claims the information is classified.
Judge Boasberg is not having it, points out he reviews classified information all the time in camera.
Brad Moss: Judges have the authority to order the government to reveal classified information directly to them in secure settings.
3/ Emptywheel:
One other wrinkle of the conflict over the AEA deportations: Two members of the ACLU team, Ashley Gorski and Patrick Toomey, are the two lawyers most persistently challenging FISA shenanigans in the last 10 years--recently got a big 702 win.
They've butted heads w/ and over James Boasberg in past.
4/ And here on Mastodon, Joshua Friedman is live posting.
Follow his posts. That way I don't have to live post others.
Here you go:
https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:qrllvid7s54k4hnwtqxwetrf/post/3lkm2wkcs7227
5/ And @Nonilex too!
https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/114179840622384028
#Boasberg gets the #DOJ 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!!
6/ DOJ says it's all classified.
Boasberg: Let me tell you the questions I wish you to answer:
7/ US: I would direct the court to page 42 of the transcript. The big issue is that this is a fast-moving case where there's a lot of operational natsec etc. at stake. "Oral statements are not injunctions." We do believe this is a good-faith interpretation of the court's written order.
9/ Boasberg: You knew in the *morning* that there would be a hearing at 5 p.m., so any planes you were putting in the air, you knew you had that hearing coming! So you're saying that because my minute order was *pithier* ... That's a heck of a stretch, I think.
10/ Boasberg: So, I hear you make the argument that we were outside US airspace and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to order the planes to turn around. Is that your argument?
US: Your honor, that's what the statute says. Def'n of "removal"
11/ Via Brad Moss:
And we have arrived at the inevitable argument from DOJ: Trump can ignore court orders if he thinks they conflict with his power.
12/ Via Joyce Vance:
If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with what the gov't is arguing today, that the President has broad Article II powers that would permit it to deport people & there can be no judicial review, then literally no one is safe.
@GottaLaff well isn’t that really the goal?
@CatDragon Yes. I've been saying that for years now.
@GottaLaff same, for all the good it did.
Changing my name to Cassandra.
@CatDragon @GottaLaff Well then, if #SCOTUS says all of this is okay, then the #TrumpRegime could come up with any bullshit reason to disappear me, a 60-year-old white male born in this country whose only blemish legally is a minor in possession over 40 years ago, and that would be that, no appeal, no recourse. And that isn’t speculation, that’s cold hard fact. What a time to be alive!
That's not quite how it works.
Really, it comes down to whether CONGRESS, not SCOTUS, says it's OK. The major enforcement tools rest among those we elect democratically, not in the judicial branch.
We need to emphasize this much more and stop reelecting congresspeople who continually fail to do their jobs, all while pointing fingers at other branches.
