The Justice Department on Tuesday refused to answer questions from a federal judge seeking more details about deportations carried out under a rarely used wartime act, leading the judge to issue a new order for the information.
"The Government maintains that there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate," the Justice Department said in a court filing responding to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's ruling that it provide him with more information about the deportation flights.
The types of details Boasberg was asking for, the department argued, would "disclose sensitive information bearing on national security and foreign relations."
Boasberg, the district court's chief judge, responded to the filing a short time later, directing the government to answer his questions in a sealed court filing by noon Wednesday.
The government's filings Tuesday did include a declaration from an official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement answering some of the questions Boasberg had posed at a hearing Monday, when he expressed frustration that the government had appeared to snub his order halting the deportations and refused to answer questions about its actions.
Boasberg had summarized the government's position as "we don’t care, we’ll do what we want.”
In a verbal order Saturday, Boasberg had directed any planes in the air carrying deportees to return to the United States after he issued a restraining order blocking deportations stemming from President Donald Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected members of a Venezuelan gang. It was later revealed that the planes had arrived in El Salvador and Honduras, raising questions about the timing of the flights and the custody handover.
In his declaration, Robert Cerna, an acting field director of enforcement and removal operations for ICE, said that "three planes carrying aliens departed the United States for El Salvador International Airport" after Trump had issued his proclamation.
"Two of those planes departed U.S. territory and airspace before 7:25 PM EDT," Cerna said, referring to the time Boasberg's written ruling was entered in the court docket. "The third plane departed after that time, but all individuals on that third plane had Title 8 final removal orders and thus were not removed solely on the basis of the Proclamation at issue," he added.
The plaintiffs in the case, five Venezuelans the government alleges are members of Tren de Aragua, had noted in a court filing that Boasberg gave his oral order about 45 minutes before he issued a written one, when the planes were still in the air. Their filing cited public flight tracking information showing the first flight landed in Honduras at 7:36 p.m. and the second in El Salvador at 8:02 p.m.
The third flight left Texas at 7:37 p.m. and landed in Honduras at 9:46 p.m., the plaintiffs said.
The government's filing, which did not include that level of detail, contended the government had not violated Boasberg’s order, claiming that “since the relevant flights left U.S. airspace,” their “occupants were ‘removed’ before the order issued.”
In his ruling Monday, Boasberg said that if the Justice Department "takes the position that it will not provide" more details about the flights "under any circumstances, it must support such position, including with classified authorities if necessary," and that it could file those arguments under seal, if necessary.
The Justice Department declined to do so, noting it has appealed Boasberg's earlier ruling. "If, however, the Court nevertheless orders the Government to provide additional details, the Court should do so through an in camera and ex parte declaration, in order to protect sensitive information bearing on foreign relations," the filing said.
Boasberg did just that a short time later, directing the government to provide him with "the following details regarding each of the two flights leaving U.S. airspace before 7:25 p.m. on March 15, 2025: 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?"
In his declaration, Cerna responded to the inquiry about how many people subject to Trump's proclamation are still in the United States and how many are in custody.
Referring to Tren de Aragua, Cerna said that “approximately 54 members of TdA are in detention and on the detained docket, approximately 172 are on the non-detained docket, and approximately 32 are in criminal custody with active detainers against them. Should they be transferred to ICE custody, they will likely be placed in removal proceedings.”
The administration has repeatedly pushed back against Boasberg since his ruling Saturday.
Overnight, the Justice Department filed a motion asking him to reverse his decision blocking the use of 18th century act to deport the alleged gang members.
The administration argued that the temporary restraining order was "overbroad and unconstitutional," saying Boasberg's orders were "an affront to the President’s broad constitutional and statutory authority to protect the United States from dangerous aliens who pose grave threats to the American people."
The motion also contends that Boasberg "lacks jurisdiction because the presidential actions they challenge are not subject to judicial review" and that there "is similarly no jurisdiction for the Court to order the government to produce additional information about its missions."
The administration also sent a letter Monday urging a federal appeals court to remove Boasberg from the case, while Trump took to his social media platform Tuesday morning calling for him to be impeached. Trump referred to Boasberg, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, as a "radical left lunatic" and "a troublemaker and agitator."
In a statement later Tuesday, John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, said: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
