We all know the administration will stonewall and delay. All these cases are heading for criminal contempt hearings which will decide the fate of the nation. Will the courts hold? Can the courts enforce their orders, and in the end will SCOTUS hand over their robes?
Presumably the U.S. government is paying the Salvadoran government to keep these prisoners. Could Boasberg order the government to stop paying, or invoke a clause in the contract with CECOT, or whatever? Or would that be considered meddling in foreign policy?
The Orange Oompahloompah bragged to the press that he could get the people back with a "single phone call". Use the senile slimeball's words against him. . . . . .
That was addressed in the filing - basically, legally, the court has to consider that public statement as less trustworthy than the filing under oath.
Boasberg essentially told the Plaintiffs "give me evidence that this asshole is lying, because I don't really believe him, but I'm not allowed to ignore what he said yet." about said under-oath filing. I think it's safe to say that if we have evidence better than mere public statements (that the government is arguing are just lies, since they were not under oath...) Boasberg is going to be extremely unhappy with people on the Government's side, but until then...
I think my biggest disappointment here is the finding they violated those people’s due process rights, but the consequence isn’t “you must bring them home, now”, effectively allowing the government to continue violating those rights.
I would think by this point, with that finding, there’d be more urgency in the ruling.
Excellent reporting. Proud Law Dork paid subscriber. Quoting generic trump phrase regarding Judge Boasberg's order "If it's what you say it is I love it". We are in this together. Peace. Christopher and family
Has the contract wherein the US government obligates itself to pay El Salvador for taking in said prisoners been released yet? Seems that would answer many questions.
Boasberg cites plenty of caselaw for the seemingly straightforward view that a suit may proceed in equity to stop a violation (or remedy a past violation) of a Constitutional right by public officials. In this case the aliens' 5th Amendment due process rights. What I don't get is how to square that with SCOTUS vacating the original Mar 15 TRO. The original complaint included a 5th Amendment claim (the 8th claim) and an appeal to the court's inherent equitable power to provide relief for this violation. How can the court have the authority to order a remedy for the violation, but not the authority to try to preserve the status quo to prevent the violation in the first place? The simple answer is SCOTUS was rushed and wrong last April, but how does Boasberg or at some point the DC Circuit square it.
Chris, I read your publication daily or whenever it's published.
Thank you for everything and everyone you support and work hard to get the truth out.
Having said that, it is not about niceties with this admin, it is about facts. I have a couple questions.
1. Is the AEA still in play or are we still considering TdA a nation or government that has invaded the US and we are, in fact, in wartime?
2. Why is it that El Salvador has power over this man, his violated rights, and his return? Bukele, stated he wanted to take ONLY those proven to be criminally involved or prosecuted, I'm not sure which, of those sent to his facility, or GULAG.
3. Why is it that no justice can define, for the admin, what a word definition is and how, if a verb, it takes that definition into actionable account?
4. This is why we need nationwide injunctions. We do not need to be playing normal, as Alito would like, or even have them remain the court of last look. Times are not normal and I have much to say on this but we can't have jurisdictions with planes taking off and others that can't because "facilitate" seems impossible.
Any guidance is helpful from anyone who can somehow try to interpret anything regarding the SCOTUS. Thank you.
Boasberg will end up needing to rethink his current position that the US is no longer the custodian of this newly certified class just because they've been kidnapped to El Salvador.
The facts and the law both lead inevitably to the opposite conclusion. I'm sure on further reflection he'll come around.
Doesn’t the AEA, at its essence, require an “invasion”? Has Venezuela declared war? Outside of mass shootings - El Paso, say - I don’t recall news of any battles.
We all know the administration will stonewall and delay. All these cases are heading for criminal contempt hearings which will decide the fate of the nation. Will the courts hold? Can the courts enforce their orders, and in the end will SCOTUS hand over their robes?
Presumably the U.S. government is paying the Salvadoran government to keep these prisoners. Could Boasberg order the government to stop paying, or invoke a clause in the contract with CECOT, or whatever? Or would that be considered meddling in foreign policy?
The Orange Oompahloompah bragged to the press that he could get the people back with a "single phone call". Use the senile slimeball's words against him. . . . . .
That was addressed in the filing - basically, legally, the court has to consider that public statement as less trustworthy than the filing under oath.
Boasberg essentially told the Plaintiffs "give me evidence that this asshole is lying, because I don't really believe him, but I'm not allowed to ignore what he said yet." about said under-oath filing. I think it's safe to say that if we have evidence better than mere public statements (that the government is arguing are just lies, since they were not under oath...) Boasberg is going to be extremely unhappy with people on the Government's side, but until then...
It's moving toward an equilibrium state, where public statements are exactly as trustworthy as filings under oath--i.e., not at all.
Excellent reporting, Chris.
I think my biggest disappointment here is the finding they violated those people’s due process rights, but the consequence isn’t “you must bring them home, now”, effectively allowing the government to continue violating those rights.
I would think by this point, with that finding, there’d be more urgency in the ruling.
It's like sending someone to a place that has no phone service and then telling them that if they need help, just call your lawyer.
Chris,
Excellent reporting. Proud Law Dork paid subscriber. Quoting generic trump phrase regarding Judge Boasberg's order "If it's what you say it is I love it". We are in this together. Peace. Christopher and family
Has the contract wherein the US government obligates itself to pay El Salvador for taking in said prisoners been released yet? Seems that would answer many questions.
So far the administration has failed to provide anything of substance in spite of discovery orders from several courts
Me too Christopher
The battle continues.
Thank you Chris for your work and time.
Boasberg cites plenty of caselaw for the seemingly straightforward view that a suit may proceed in equity to stop a violation (or remedy a past violation) of a Constitutional right by public officials. In this case the aliens' 5th Amendment due process rights. What I don't get is how to square that with SCOTUS vacating the original Mar 15 TRO. The original complaint included a 5th Amendment claim (the 8th claim) and an appeal to the court's inherent equitable power to provide relief for this violation. How can the court have the authority to order a remedy for the violation, but not the authority to try to preserve the status quo to prevent the violation in the first place? The simple answer is SCOTUS was rushed and wrong last April, but how does Boasberg or at some point the DC Circuit square it.
Chris, I read your publication daily or whenever it's published.
Thank you for everything and everyone you support and work hard to get the truth out.
Having said that, it is not about niceties with this admin, it is about facts. I have a couple questions.
1. Is the AEA still in play or are we still considering TdA a nation or government that has invaded the US and we are, in fact, in wartime?
2. Why is it that El Salvador has power over this man, his violated rights, and his return? Bukele, stated he wanted to take ONLY those proven to be criminally involved or prosecuted, I'm not sure which, of those sent to his facility, or GULAG.
3. Why is it that no justice can define, for the admin, what a word definition is and how, if a verb, it takes that definition into actionable account?
4. This is why we need nationwide injunctions. We do not need to be playing normal, as Alito would like, or even have them remain the court of last look. Times are not normal and I have much to say on this but we can't have jurisdictions with planes taking off and others that can't because "facilitate" seems impossible.
Any guidance is helpful from anyone who can somehow try to interpret anything regarding the SCOTUS. Thank you.
Boasberg will end up needing to rethink his current position that the US is no longer the custodian of this newly certified class just because they've been kidnapped to El Salvador.
The facts and the law both lead inevitably to the opposite conclusion. I'm sure on further reflection he'll come around.
Doesn’t the AEA, at its essence, require an “invasion”? Has Venezuela declared war? Outside of mass shootings - El Paso, say - I don’t recall news of any battles.
Not to mention the fact that #Felon47 isn’t attacking the country of Venezuela over their “invasion”.
Never—they might fight back!
Yep, invasion or incursion. Let's not forget that a report by the National Intelligence Council stated that the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro doesn’t direct the activities of Tren de Aragua. (https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/05/us-intel-memo-undercuts-trump-claims-about-venezuelan-gang-00330542) So much for an invasion.....
Invasion … just like Putin stating Ukraine threatens Russia; the real invasion is falsehood over truth.
Thank you for your excellent reporting!