____________________________________________________________________________________
OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The U.S. Department of Justice accused a federal judge of “digressive micromanagement” Wednesday concerning a case involving deportation flights that sent Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador over the weekend.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the DOJ to submit answers to five questions after it insisted Tuesday that the flights did not violate a court order. The DOJ has requested more time to answer the questions.
“The Court has now spent more time trying to ferret out information about the Government’s flight schedules and relations with foreign countries than it did in investigating the facts before certifying the class action in this case,” read a filing Wednesday that was co-signed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and others. “That observation reflects how upside-down this case has become, as digressive micromanagement has outweighed consideration of the case’s legal issues.”
“The distraction of the specific facts surrounding the movements of an airplane has derailed this case long enough and should end until the Circuit Court has had a chance to weigh in. The Government respects this Court and has complied with its request to present the Government’s position on the legality of the Court’s [Temporary Restraining Order] and the Government’s compliance with that TRO,” they wrote.
Boasberg ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to answer five questions, submitting declarations to him under seal by noon on Wednesday: “1) What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil and from where? 2) What time did it leave U.S. airspace? 3) What time did it land in which foreign country (including if it made more than one stop)? 4) What time were individuals subject solely to the Proclamation transferred out of U.S. custody? and 5) How many people were aboard solely on the basis of the Proclamation?”
However, the Justice Department said in their filing today that “Defendants are currently evaluating whether to invoke the state secrets privilege as to portions of the information sought by this Court’s order.”
“Whether and how to invoke that privilege involves both weighty considerations and specific procedures that are not amenable to the 21-hour turnaround period currently provided by this Court’s order,” it continued.
“The underlying premise of these orders, including the most recent one requiring the production of these facts ex parte today at noon, is that the Judicial Branch is superior to the Executive Branch, particularly on non-legal matters involving foreign affairs and national security. The Government disagrees. The two branches are coequal, and the Court’s continued intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch, especially on a non-legal and factually irrelevant matter, should end,” the Justice Department added.
It also said “disclosure of the information sought could implicate the affairs of United States allies and their cooperation with the United States Government in fighting terrorist organizations” and “such disclosure would unquestionably create serious repercussions for the Executive Branch’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.”
“What began as a dispute between litigants over the President’s authority to protect the national security and manage the foreign relations of the United States pursuant to both a longstanding Congressional authorization and the President’s core constitutional authorities has devolved into a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding,” the Justice Department declared.