Judge Grants Trump Administration One More Day to Provide Deportation Information to El Salvador or Invoke Privilege
A federal judge extended the deadline for the Trump administration to provide details on deportations carried out under the Alien Enemies Act or invoke the state secrets privilege to withhold the information. The Department of Justice argues that disclosing the details could impact national security. Judge James Boasberg is investigating whether the administration violated court orders to halt the deportations, which included alleged Venezuelan gang members. Trump criticized Boasberg, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to defend judicial independence, stating that appeals—not disobedience—are the proper way to challenge legal rulings.
Federal District Judge James Boasberg extended the deadline for the Department of Justice to provide information on deportations carried out by the Trump administration last weekend under the Alien Enemies Act. Alternatively, the department must decide whether it will invoke the “state secrets privilege” to withhold the information.
Boasberg issued his ruling just before the original noon deadline, granting an extension until Thursday at the same time.
The Department of Justice made a last-minute attempt to avoid handing over more details about the deportations, arguing that the request could impact national security.
Boasberg, who previously presided over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, stated that he was “not yet convinced how complying with this order would endanger state secrets.”
The emergency filing from Attorney General Pam Bondi and other senior Justice Department officials came just hours before the deadline. The government was required to provide the judge with confidential answers about the deportations, including the exact time two planes carrying migrants departed U.S. airspace on Saturday and when those deported under the Alien Enemies Act were transferred out of U.S. custody.
“The questions constitute severe intrusions into fundamental aspects of the Executive Branch’s absolute and unreviewable authority over national security, foreign relations, and foreign policy,” the Department of Justice argued in its filing.
President Donald Trump and Judge James Boasberg have been at odds in this legal battle. The Justice Department asked Boasberg to suspend the deadline so they could decide whether to invoke the state secrets privilege, which would allow them to withhold sensitive information.
“A cautious approach is justified rather than a rushed timeline of less than 24 hours, which could force the government into a difficult decision: a hasty and possibly insufficient invocation of the state secrets privilege or the disclosure of sensitive national security and foreign affairs information,” officials wrote.
If the Department of Justice invokes the privilege, Boasberg noted in a four-page order that he would be “obligated to determine whether the circumstances warrant such a claim.”
Boasberg strongly rejected the Justice Department’s argument that it should not have to comply because the government believed it had exceeded its authority when it tried to halt the deportations.
“The Court seeks factual information to determine whether the government complied with temporary restraining orders. The legal validity of those orders does not govern this compliance inquiry,” he wrote.
“The Supreme Court has made it clear that the proper recourse for a party subject to a court order they believe to be legally flawed is appellate review, not disobedience,” Boasberg emphasized.
The judge is investigating whether the government violated two of his own orders issued on Saturday. One of these orders temporarily halted the deportations while he considered a legal challenge to Trump’s use of rarely invoked wartime authority to rapidly expel alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
Trump suggested that Boasberg should be “removed,” leading to a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that the appeals process is the appropriate way to resolve legal disputes.
