Trump DOJ Slams Judge's 'Digressive Micromanagement,' Requests More Time to Respond

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) isn’t holding back in its criticism of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of "digressive micromanagement" in a legal battle over deportation flights involving Venezuelan nationals. The DOJ has requested additional time to respond to the judge’s five detailed questions about the flights, which took place despite a court order temporarily halting them.

The deportation flights, which sent over 200 migrants to El Salvador last weekend, have sparked a fierce legal and political clash. Judge Boasberg had granted an emergency order blocking the flights for 14 days to review the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a wartime-era law invoked to deport Venezuelan nationals and alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang. However, two planes had already left U.S. airspace by the time the order was issued.

In a filing co-signed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi and other top DOJ officials, the department argued that the judge’s focus on "specific facts surrounding the movements of an airplane" has derailed the case. They described the inquiry as overreach, asserting that it distracts from the broader legal issues at hand.

The DOJ also expressed concern over Judge Boasberg’s demand for answers to five specific questions, including the exact times the planes departed and landed, the locations of any stops, and how many individuals were aboard solely under the deportation proclamation. The department indicated it may invoke the state secrets privilege to withhold some of this information, citing national security and foreign relations concerns.

"Defendants are currently evaluating whether to invoke the state secrets privilege as to portions of the information sought," the DOJ stated. They added that the 21-hour deadline set by the court to provide these answers was insufficient, given the "weighty considerations" involved.

The DOJ’s filing also took aim at what it described as judicial overreach, stating, "The premise of these orders... is that the Judicial Branch is superior to the Executive Branch, particularly on non-legal matters involving foreign affairs and national security. The Government disagrees."

The legal battle has also drawn in advocacy groups like Democracy Forward and the ACLU, which argue that the deportations pose imminent and "irreparable" harm to the migrants. Judge Boasberg sided with these plaintiffs in his initial ruling, directing the administration to notify them of any deportation flights and return planes already in the air.

Despite these orders, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that one flight carrying over 130 individuals removed under the Alien Enemies Act had already departed before the court’s intervention. The administration has defended its actions, emphasizing the need to protect national security and maintain foreign relations.

This case underscores the ongoing tensions between the judicial and executive branches, particularly when it comes to high-stakes issues like immigration and national security. While the DOJ pushes back against what it sees as judicial micromanagement, the court insists on its role as a check on executive power. For now, this legal tug-of-war shows no signs of easing.