The Trump administration probably violated the order of the court on deportations, says the judge

A federal judge in Washington declared on Thursday that there was a “right probability” that the Trump administration had violated an order that issued last month to stop deporting the Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador pursuant to a law in war of the 18th century.

Speaking in an audition, the judge, James E. Boasberg, said he would probably have had to wait until next week to issue a sentence on the fact that the White House was in contempt for the court for ignoring his order. The announcement that would delay a final decision came after spending almost an hour in a remarkable interrogation from a lawyer from the Department of Justice.

The Tesa hearing, at the Federal District Court of Washington, was the last turning point in a dispute between judge Boasberg and the Trump administration, which has He attacked him repeatedly for having passed his authority presumably intruding on the prerogative of the President to conduct foreign affairs.

A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Trump asked that judge Boasberg was accused. And in the days that followed, some of his best helpers – among them, the attorney general Pam Bondi – went to television to accuse him, among other things, of being “out of control”.

But during Thursday’s hearing, Judge Boasberg, a former murder prosecutor, was far from out of control. By adopting the tone of an inquisitor, he led the department’s lawyer, he designed Lysign, through a series of questions intended to determine if the Trump administration had hurried the Venezuelan migrants on the planes and had taken them away from the catwalk on March 15, in an attempt to avoid his order by stopping them.

Judge Boasberg also grilled Mr. Ensign on a topic that was potentially even more sensitive: those in the administration knew of his order when he had been handed down and who, if someone had given instructions for the planes who transported the migrants to El Salvador not to turn around.

Being in the hot place, Mr. Findign often came across while trying to respond to the investigations of judge Boasberg. He repeatedly claimed not to know the answers or say that the information was protected by the privilege of lawyer-client.

Judge Boasberg promised to “get to the bottom” to the question and the end of the hearing, he left the possibility that there could be more proceedings or that could ask for testimonies from some of the officials involved in the report.

The question if anyone in the administration should be kept in contempt of the court is separated from the debate below if the White House used the law correctly in war, known as Alien Enemies Act, when he deported to El Salvador to about 100 Venezuelan Venezuelans accused of being a member of a violent road band called Tren de Aragua.

The law, which was approved in 1798, should only be used in stated times of war or during an invasion against people in the United States by a “hostile nation”. And judge Boasberg, in a previous hearing, Express skepticism that the administration was using the statute in a lawful way.

However, the dispute that Trump officials respected the order of the judge was significant because he recorded a potential rendering of the accounts between the judicial and executive branches. If Judge Boasberg at the end he decides that the administration was contempt, he will therefore have to consider if – and how – punish anyone involved.

The topic of those who could have been involved led to some of the most clear questions that judge Boasberg asked Mr. Liazzurro during Thursday’s hearing.

Under pressure, Mr. Ensign recognized that after the judge had issued his initial order by stopping the flights last month, he sent an e -mail to the officials of the State Department and the Department for National Security. He also admitted that he had warned several officials of the low -level justice department on the sentence, but he said he could not remember if he had told anyone else to the department, in particular to those in higher charge.

Furthermore, Mr. Ensign said he had no idea those who had allowed migrants’ planes to continue in El Salvador, causing an incredulous reaction of judge Boasberg.

“Who made the decision not to say something to the pilots or to let them go on?” Judge Boasberg asked.

“Your honor, I don’t know,” Mr. Ensign replied.

“Are you here to tell me that you have no idea who made the decision not to report the planes?” he asked the judge.

Mr. Ensign said that it was like this, adding: “I don’t know those operational details”.

The lawyers of the Department of Justice have Unfortunate by judge Boasberg, repeatedly stone wall, To question them about what the administration officials knew of his order by stopping flights and when they knew it. Last month, for example, they tried at the last minute to cancel an audition in which it was expected to be asked on these topics and then made an unusual attempt to throw it away.

Last week, the Department of Justice rejected again to provide judge Boasberg with details on the times of deportation flights, Affirm a rare legal doctrine called State Privilege Secrets. The doctrine can allow the executive branch to block the use of court tests – and sometimes close entire legal actions – when it says that the issues containing in the open court risk revealing information that could damage national security.

Thursday in court, judge Boasberg seemed to deride the idea that information on deportation flights should be considered state secrets. Mr. Findign recognized that the flight data they wanted were not classified and then asked if there was a precedent for the government to protect the materials not classified under the national security column.

Mr. Lysign, who seems to fight with the question, mentioned a case that seemed to support his statement. But when judge Boasberg asked if he were sure, he recognized that he could have been wrong.