An angry judge in Boston is holding a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in contempt after he detained a suspect while the man was on trial.
ICE agent Brian Sullivan detained Wilson Martell-Lebron last week as he was leaving court. But a Boston Municipal Court judge issued a ruling Monday against Sullivan, arguing that he had deprived Martell-Lebron of his rights to due process and a fair trial by taking him into custody.
“It’s a case of violating a defendant’s right to present at trial and confront witnesses against him," Judge Mark Summerville said from the bench. “It couldn’t be more serious.”
Summerville dismissed the charge against Martell-Lebron of making false statements on his driver’s license application – namely that he wasn’t Martell-Lebron.
It looks like messing around with Judge Boasberg is about to turn into a major example of FAFO.
Speaking at a hearing, the judge, James E. Boasberg, said that he was likely to wait until next week to issue a ruling about whether the White House was in contempt of court for having ignored his order. The announcement that he would delay a final decision came after he spent nearly an hour in a remarkable interrogation of a Justice Department lawyer.
Adopting the tone of an inquisitor, he led the department lawyer, Drew Ensign, through a series of questions intended to determine whether the Trump administration had hurried the Venezuelan migrants onto planes and rushed them off the runway on March 15 in an effort to avoid his order stopping them.
Judge Boasberg also grilled Mr. Ensign about a subject that was potentially even more sensitive: who in the administration knew about his order when it was handed down and who, if anyone, had given instructions for the planes transporting the migrants to El Salvador not to turn around.
This is a bad situation, but I agree that the courts don’t and shouldn’t have the power to order the government to ask another country to repatriate a prisoner. The government should absolutely do that, in this instance, but the courts shouldn’t have the power to order it so. If the courts did for whatever reason gain the power to order repatriation requests - I think it would take an act of Congress establishing a private right of action and a mechanism for that specific remedy - what would happen is that these requests would be delegated to some low ranking official and almost certainly be ignored by the recipient country.
Also I’m getting conflicting information as to whether a judge ordered this individual’s deportation. Some sources say he was officially ordered deported (rightly or wrongly), but prohibited from being deported to El Salvador. Which is where he was ultimately sent, in error.
It’s not a catch-22. Once you’ve been deported, you aren’t being detained by the United States any more. You can’t exercise your rights as a subject of U.S. jurisdiction because you aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction any more.
Usually when the U.S. violates an individual’s rights, that individual remains under U.S. jurisdiction and so still has the right to challenge the violation of his rights. That is not always the case, for example when the individual is deported, or killed.
But this whole situation is beyond the pale. They shouldn’t have had this guy in the first place. Worrying about legal niceties when dealing with a country like that is ludicrous.
April 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must return a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador back to the United States within three days, the latest legal setback for the administration’s hardline deportation policies.
Like many here, though … I’m not sure this lone judgement gets Garcia back to the US. Let’s see where this goes.
This is difficult to Google because today’s events swamp the search results. Were any of the “some sources” known to be left-learning sources? I’d be wary of anything from Fox, NewsMax, known right-wing YouTubers or bloggers, etc.
Certainly, the court can’t command a foreign nation to do something. But they can force US officials to take reasonable steps to try and correct their actions.
There’s a difference between El Salvador refusing to turn a guy over, and no one ever even asking El Salvador if they’d be willing to turn the guy over.
The details that the Trump administration argued were covered by State Secrets included the timing of these flights.
I think we can presume that Judge Boasberg is trying to determine whether he issued his order – verbal or written – and then the Trump administration basically said, “Get this bird off the tarmac, ASAP!!”
So, the inability to fetch this illegally deported guy back from El Salvador rings rather hollow.
It’s vaguely reminiscent of the kid that kills his parents, and then his lawyer begs the court for mercy, since – after all – “my client is an orphan.”
To me, Garcia’s case has some things in common with, say, Brittney Griner’s detention in Russia. She was also no longer in the U.S.'s jurisdiction, yet the State Department, among others, worked to get her released.
I think everyone understand’s that the U.S., ultimately, can’t exactly order El Salvador to release Garcia. But the U.S. can and should work diplomatic channels, make offers, etc. to effect his release.
Different case, I believe. Same flights/general deportation policy but different case, different judge (Judge Xinis), different thing the government is being asked to do.
I agree, the U.S. can and should try to effect Mr. Garcia’s release. I don’t think the courts can make that happen, though. At least not using their traditional equity powers. I also thought of Britney Griner but other situations running through my head were espionage/spy cases or hostage situations such as the Americans held hostage by terrorists. I don’t think courts have the power to force, say, the Bush II administration to negotiate with terrorists for hostages, contrary to that administration’s famous policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Here the plaintiff is asking the court to force the Trump administration to withhold payments to El Salvador as leverage until Mr. Garcia is released. That’s the right thing to ask the government to do, but just not the court’s place, IMO.
It’s the court’s job - like the Executive’s - to ensure that the laws are enforced.
They have particular sticks that they control - contempt, fines, etc. - which they’re free to utilize in that regard.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court could say that the judge isn’t allowed to enforce the law, in this particular case, but I don’t see any reason to think that he’s not allowed to by default.
By default, a citizen could make a citizen arrest of the President, having seen the President shoot a woman in the street. The President swears to faithfully execute the law and, in that aim, he’s largely immune from scrutiny. A choice to not execute the law, in theory, removes all such immunity.
The U.S. is paying for him to stay there. If we stop paying, they will want us to pick him up. It could be we pre-paid for the whole fiscal year, but it probably is closer to month to month.
El Salvador’s Trump tariff rate is only 10 percent, but so much of their economy is based on exports to the U.S. that the tariff must be a problem they are hoping to get relief for. They’ll do whatever Trump wants.
I’m very weary of where I was reading that a judge had ordered deportation, eg. Newsweek. But even more left-leaning sources kind of dance around the issue.
A native of El Salvador, Abrego Garcia came to the United States in 2011, fleeing gang violence. Although he entered the country without authorization, an immigration judge granted him protected status in 2019, finding that he would likely face persecution if sent back to his home country. Federal law prohibits his removal to El Salvador. The Trump administration targeted him anyway, pulling him over while he was driving with his son, who is 5 years old and intellectually disabled.
This is a Slate story reposted to MSN. They are very careful to note that “[f]ederal law prohibits his removal to El Salvador”, emphasis mine. Click on the link that says “granted him protected status” and you are confronted with the Garcia family’s first court filing in the lawsuit. This is the line I’m looking at, p.2., emphasis mine,
In 2019, Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia won an order from an immigration judge granting him a form of relief called withholding of removal, which prohibits Defendants from removing him to El Salvador. Should Defendants wish to remove Plaintiff Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, the law sets forth specific procedures by which they can reopen the case and seek to set aside the grant of withholding of removal. Should Defendants wish to remove Plaintiff Abrego Garcia to any other country, they would have no legal impediment in doing so.
My thinking is, if the Garcia lawyer is writing the govt. would have no legal impediment in deporting Garcia to any other country, I don’t see the government saying ‘okay, we’ll bring him back to the U.S. to stay.’
I wish I knew more about the deportation process; I’ve only looked into it a couple times. I don’t think the judge actually orders deportation, I think aside from some kind of statutory notice and a first hearing they just deport you unless you convince the court you have rights (without a govt. appointed lawyer I should add). The burden of proof is on you to prove your right to stay.
I agree with this. And in order to incentivize the administration to get him back to the United States, how about holding members of the administration in contempt until they do?