Trump’s administration is likely to act insulting the court by not reversing deportation flights, the judge said

A federal judge has discovered the possibility of the cause that Trump’s government acted to insult the court when officials last month opposed his orders to hand over two planes carrying alleged members of the Venezuela Gang to El Salvador.

“The intentional disobedience from the Judicial Order” without consequences will make the “solemn mockery” of the constitution itself, “US Judge James Boasberg wrote Wednesday.

The Boasberg last month ordered that the government handed over two flights carrying more than 200 alleged members of the de Aragua trend to El Salvador after Trump’s administration requested the enemy of the war enemies used to deport the non-citizenship of the state with a process that was not too much-by stating that the gang was the “Hybrid Criminal Country” which was attacked by countries being attacked.

The authorities failed to reverse flights, but insisted that they “comply with the law” while questioning the legitimacy of Boasberg’s orders. According to DOJ, Boasberg’s oral instructions that direct the flight to be returned damaged, and the next written command does not have the explanation needed to be upheld.

Boasberg blamed Trump’s administration for carrying out “rushing transfer operations” on March 15 and 16 in a few hours after he issued orders that prevented deportation and ordered people from returning to the United States.

“As this opinion will specify, the court ultimately determines that the government’s actions that day showed deliberate neglect of his orders,” he wrote.

Boasberg noted that he gave Trump’s administration “sufficient opportunity to improve or explain their actions” but “There is no satisfactory response.”

While the Supreme Court finally emptied his court orders, Judge Boasberg concluded that Trump’s government was still opposing the order for three weeks, even if the order suffered “legally flawed.”

‘

Boasberg gave a deadline for Trump’s administration one week to submit “declarations that explained the steps they had taken and would take to do it.”

The way to “clean” the potential discovery of insult, said Boasberg, is to comply with the initial command.

“The most obvious way for the defendant to do this here is to emphasize custody of the people who are transferred by violating the Tro in all court classes so that they can take advantage of their rights to challenge their transfer through the habeas process,” Boasberg wrote, referring to the temporary detention order issued.

“In accordance with the provisions of the Tro, the government does not need to free those people, nor does it need to transport them back to the homeland. The court will also give the defendant the opportunity to propose other methods to obey, which will be evaluated by the court.”

If Trump’s administration does not want to clean up the findings of Boasberg’s insult, the judge said he would “continue to identify individuals responsible for continuous behavior by determining” specific actions or negligence “that cause non -compliance.”

Boasberg said he would start by requiring declarations from the government, and if they were proven unsatisfactory, he would “continue to the hearing with witness testimony directly under the oath or deposition carried out by the Plaintiff.”

As a last potential step, Boasberg raised the prospect that he could appoint an independent lawyer to sue the government for his insult.

“The next step is for the court, in accordance with the federal rules of criminal procedures, to request that insults are demanded by lawyers for the government,” Boasberg wrote.

If the government “rejects” or “the interests of justice requires,” the court will “appoint another lawyer to demand insults,” he wrote.