Fed Judge finds Trump administration in criminal contempt in El Salvador deportee case

Politics & Elections
1

Shit is getting real!! Judge James Boasberg is yet to decide on the next steps, and awaits the Administration’s response.

Heartwarming excerpts from the decision:

As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.

“The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” Boasberg went on. “None of their responses has been satisfactory.”

The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding.

Per the terms of the TRO, the Government would not need to release any of those individuals, nor would it need to transport them back to the homeland. The Court will also give Defendants an opportunity to propose other methods of coming into compliance, which the Court will evaluate.

Further, from the Guardian (crucial bits bolded):

If the Trump administration does not wish to purge Boasberg’s contempt finding, the judge said he will “proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose “specific act or omission” caused the noncompliance”.

The judge said he will begin by requiring declarations from the government, and if those prove to be unsatisfactory, he will “proceed either to hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs”.

As a final potential step, Boasberg raised the prospect that he could appoint an independent attorney to prosecute the government for its contempt.

The next step would be for the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government.

If the government “declines” or “the interest of justice requires”, the court will “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt”, he wrote.

Looks like we have a full-blown Constitutional crisis on our hands.

2

When this resolves, we may have a definitive answer to this thread.

3

We already have the answer to that thread, it is not boring at all… it is like that old saying of “may you live in interesting times”, where that is not a blessing, but in reality, it is a curse.

4

I read somewhere that the old saying as commonly formulated is incomplete.

The full saying is, “May you live in interesting times, and come to the attention of important people.”

5

Maybe the courts finally realized that if they just cede all their power to Trump, they’ll have none for themselves.

6

This and the Garcia case are going to lead to some interesting - and IMO momentous - appellate decisions.

I could imagine the Circuit Court/Supremes cobbling together some BS about Boasberg’s TRO having been overruled, combined with the executive powers and the well established legal principle of “no harm no foul.” :roll_eyes:

But - yeah, one would think just about every member of the fed judiciary would have to be alert as to the magnitude of what is going on and wondering about what role they will play in the process.

Speaking of matters judicial, given the nature of so many of Trump’s appointments I’m really surprised Loose Cannon hasn’t been nominated for elevation to a Circuit Court.

7

Can somebody explain to me how this affects Trump’s administration, as opposed to Trump himself?

I assume Trump thinks that as President, he is untouchable. And he’s probably right.

But Trump needs minions to carry out his orders. And Trump’s legal shield won’t necessarily cover all of them, even assuming Trump makes any effort to do so. So even if Trump is able to give out illegal orders without consequences, the damage will be mitigated if people are aware they will face consequences for following those illegal orders and therefore refuse to do so.

8

What if Trump just whipped out his Pardon Pad the way a stereotypical parking meter attendant whips out his citation pad?

What if?

ETA: Congressional Research Service - Can a President Pardon Contempt of Court? Probably yes (2018 – 3pp PDF)

9

Come 2029 we’re really gonna have to draft some amendments to limit the arbitrary powers of the presidency.

10

This would be a good idea regardless, but isn’t required in this situation - if Congress grew a spine they could end the “emergency” and stop the tariffs and deportations tomorrow.

11

Quoted by Thing.Fish, not written by Thing.Fish.

What kind of fair hearing can they possibly get while in a Salvadorean prison?

So the Trump administration sends on of their pet lawyers down there to talk to them for five minutes with no witnesses, the administration claims that they were in US custody while in the interview room, and the lawyer comes back and says ‘Yup, plenty of evidence, they confessed it to me, their government-approved lawyer, leave them there!’ What if anything will the court do about that?

Think we’re gonna get the chance?

If Congress grew a spine they could impeach and convict Trump for handing over state secrets to Doge; and Vance along with him, for that matter.

And if I had a pony, I’d have a source of the useful type of manure.

12

The bar for getting an amendment passed is high, but if we survive this term I think there’ll be enough motivation to pass some restrictions on, say, pardon power and the president’s ability to arbitrarily fire people or impound funds, at the very least, as well as requiring the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on appointments and House legislation instead of just burying it.

13

What I’m worried about is our actually getting a fair election.

14

If that happens then I’ll be more worried about the prospect of civil war breaking out than the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment.

15

Boasberg is talking about criminal contempt, so yes , he can pardon them, although whether he will or not is another story.

And certainly no one will be sentenced to Federal prison. But I suspect the pardons won’t guarantee that they keep their law licenses - after all, a person can be disbarred even for things that are not crimes.

Boasberg is talking about a hearing, with a judge and everything , not just sending a prosecutor into a room. Because it would have to be a prosecutor in your scenario, no defense attorney would say their client confessed. I suppose the US could sent the necessary parties down to El Salvador or set up a video conferenced hearing or even bring them back to the US. He said the Government wouldn’t need to transport them to “the homeland” by which I assume he means the US - but he didn’t say they can’t.

16

If this admin isn’t enough to make it happen, it never will.

While I would not bet on this outcome (at least without LONG odds), I suspect the possibility is non-zero.

17

I would just note that there’s clear documentation from the time and from the pre-ratification debate for the Constitution that the Framers held that the House of Representatives had full power to act like a grand jury, restricting the rights and powers of their targets - e.g. the right to leave the country. And, specifically, the right to suspend the President’s pardon power (as I read it), if the Executive was plausibly corrupt or autocratic.

And I’d note that it’s not clear why Pelosi opted against this during Trump’s first term. Had she done so, Paul Manafort may have flipped.

18

Moderating:

We have a plethora of threads on the difficulties of the next election, new amendments and civil war. Let’s keep this thread on the topic of this particular case and it’s resolution.

19

@ParallelLines – sorry; you’re right.

@doreen: you think they’ll get a fair hearing, with this administration picking the judge, and held in that prison with no potential witnesses that the administration didn’t also pick?

(And defense attorneys help work out plea bargains all the time; including telling their clients to confess, sometimes whether or not they’re guilty.)

If Boasberg had said they had to be brought back to their home states to have a hearing with a previously-appointed judge: that would have amounted to something. I’m pretty dubious that this does.

20

Why would you think the administration would pick the judge ? Habeas proceedings go to a judge in a Federal court , not an immigration judge. It will be assigned however other cases in that district are assigned.

Defense attorneys advise their clients to plead guilty ( not confess) all the time when the attorney believes that’s what’s in the client’ s best interest. Except the sort of hearing that Boasberg is talking about is not a criminal proceeding, or even a deportation hearing. There isn’t any pleading guilty or confessing. It’s a hearing strictly about whether the detention itself is legal.