The judges tear the administration for the dispute tactics

The judges showed a certain frustration this week on how the Trump administration defended himself in court, with a person saying that he seemed to have used “bad faith” tactics, another accusing him of using “fallacious” arguments and a third saying that he made “inaccurate” claims.

One of the judges, the American district judge James Boasberg, suggested that he could take out an outrage procedure so that the government takes into account that it does not comply with its ordinances.

In a separate but related case, a federal judge from Maryland ordered the government to return an expelled which he recognized was accidentally sent to a notorious megajail to El Salvador.

The week ended with a major victory for the administration, when the Supreme Court allowed him to end the subsidies of the Department of Education that a lower court had restored. It was the first time in the second administration of President Donald Trump that the Supreme Court was moving with him.

Here is an overview of some of the biggest legal developments of the week:

“ The government acted in bad faith ”

During a hearing on Thursday, Boasberg demanded detailed responses on the failure of the administration to comply with his order prohibiting deportations under the invocation by Trump of the Rarely used extraterrestrial law.

He didn’t understand them.

After the deputy deputy prosecutor general for immigration, Drew Ensign, told him “it is our post that the actions of the government conforms” to his two content orders prohibiting alleged members of Venezuelans gangs from being moved outside the country on March 15, the judge let his frustration show.

“Okay. It therefore seems to me that there is a good probability that it is not correct, and in fact, that the government acted in bad faith throughout this day,” said Boasberg.

“If you really thought that everything you did that day was legal and will be able to survive a legal challenge, I cannot believe that you would have ever worked as you did,” he added.

He also referred to the expulsion of a man from Maryland whom the administration recognized was wrongly sent to El Salvador.

“So what you were ready to do while trying to do it as quickly as possible and avoid being enjoined by the court is to risk putting people on these planes that should not have been on planes in the first place,” said Boasberg later during the hearing.

The judge noted that Trump had signed the AEA on Friday March 14, but made public until Saturday afternoon, when preparations to send the deportees to a Salvador prison were already underway.

He suggested that the timing was intentional, so that the deportees could be “removed from the country before it is possible to challenge it legally”.

Ensign said: “I have no information about it.”

The lawyers of the complainants, who all deny that they are members of the gang, heard of the decree on March 14 and brought an action at night to block the deportations. Boasberg ordered an emergency audience for this Saturday afternoon.

During this hearing, the judge ordered any deportation of the AEA to be temporarily interrupted and ordered that the flights in the course of the American ENSIG have declared when he was not aware of any, a position he reiterated on Thursday.

“I had no knowledge of my client who was the case,” said Ensign, and “I made diligent efforts to obtain this information” from the Ministry of Internal Security and the State Department.

It was later revealed that two of these flights were in the air at the time. The government has refused to publish details on the exact calendar, by calling it “state secret”. The lawyers of the Ministry of Justice said that thefts were outside the American airspace at the time and therefore had to return.

Boasberg pressed the brand that made the decision not to run the planes. “I don’t know that,” said Ensign.

“I am certainly interested in discovering it because, as we proceed to a potential procedure for contempt, it can become relevant,” said the judge.

He said he would probably make an order to find out if there is a probable cause to find the government in contempt next week.

On Friday, during an independent press conference, the American prosecutor General Pam Bondi was invited to know if she “was involved in the decision to challenge” the Boasberg order.

“I do not think that anyone challenged an order from a judge. It is pending court at the moment,” she said.

On Tuesday, the parties will be back in front of Boasberg for arguments at the heart of the matter in the case – if the Trump administration should be prohibited indefinitely from the presumed expulsion of the members of Tren of Aragua under the AEA.

The administration has already called upon its current restriction order at the United States Supreme Court, alleging that it breaks the president’s powers.

The judge reigns in favor of the man of Maryland expelled in Salvador

Friday, the American district judge Paula Xinis ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is a legal resident in Maryland, on the United States on Monday after a lawyer of the Ministry of Justice recognized that he should not have been sent to El Salvador.

An immigration judge had specifically prohibited from Garcia, who alleys the government, is a member of the MS-13 gang, to be sent to Salvador in 2019, judging “more likely that he would be persecuted” there.

Xinis asked the prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice, Erez Rebeni, why the administration could not ask El Salvador to return Garcia. Reundi said he had asked his client the same thing and: “I have not yet received a answer that I find satisfactory.”

Reveni also said that he did not know why Garcia had been arrested, how he was determined that he would be sent to El Salvador or any detail on the administration agreement with the prison there.

“The government has chosen here not to produce any evidence,” he said.

Arguments “to legal faith” in a Californian case

A federal judge in California made an order on Monday temporarily preventing the Trump administration from ending the temporary protected status for more than 350,000 Venezuelan nationals.

US District Judge Edward Chen said that the complainants in the case will be able to succeed with their allegations according to which the “unprecedented” decision of Homeland, Kristi Noem Security Secretary, to end their TPS protections – which allow them to live and work in the United States – is “not authorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by a law Ammusumuse “.

Noem had directed the protections of the TPS, which were to expire at the end of next year, to be terminated on April 7.

The administration appeals to Chen’s decision and asked him separately from keeping his own decision, stressing in part that the end of the protections does not mean that they will be expelled.

“(T) hat is a fallacious argument,” wrote Chen on Friday, rejecting the request for suspension of the administration.

He noted that during an interview where she announced the decision, Noem said that “the people of this country wanted these bags to the ground” come out. “”

He declared that the “whole point” of the decision to dismiss Noem “was to allow the abolition of the holders of Venezuelan TPS on a calendar well before the established calendar” by his predecessor, Alejandro Mayorkas.

“The government has not declared that, if the court should maintain its postponement order, it will not immediately go ahead with the withdrawal of any holder of the Venezuelan TPS,” added Chen.

He underlined the recognition of the administration in the AEA case that one of the deportees should not have been deleted as another reason not to interrupt his decision.

The “government has wrongly expelled an individual, who has legal status to be in the United States, in Salvador but essentially took the position that he can do nothing to face this error,” wrote the judge, showing any dismissal in his case “could probably not be” undone “if the applicants finally prevail”.

Complaint “ inaccurate ”

The Ministry of Justice has also requested a suspension of a federal judge in Washington, DC, asking him to suspend his preliminary injunction with the exception of the administration to close the financial protection office of consumers.

The decision of the American district judge Amy Berman Jackson, on March 28, the granting of the injunction included hard words for the administration, judging his affirmations that he did not try to close the “unreliable” agency.

The government’s eleventh hour’s attempt to suggest immediately before the hearing that the work order was not really a work order at all was so fallacious that the court finds itself with little confidence that defense can trust to tell the truth about anything, “Jackson wrote.

She was also not impressed Thursday with her arguments for the stay of her order.

“(T) heir The description of the order is in contradiction with the terms of the order, and their description of the decision which encouraged it is also inaccurate,” she wrote, denying the request.

On the same day, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals American granted the government a temporary partial suspension of the order.

“The aim of this administrative suspension is to give the court a sufficient possibility to examine the emergency request for a stay awaiting appeal and should not be interpreted in any case as a decision on the merits of this request,” said the decision.

Supreme victory

Friday, the Supreme Court granted the administration a little help by allowing it to end education for teacher training that administration officials consider to violate Trump’s policy opposed to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

The 5-4 decision blocked a decision of the judge based in Massachusetts which revealed that the administration had not followed the correct legal process in the end of the grants.

The appeal was one of the three that the administration submitted to the High Court last week, including the Alien Enemies Act.