Kristi Noem deportation decision defying judge revealed by DOJ

Kristi Noem deportation decision, defying a judge revealed by DOJ

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was behind a central decision not to turn deportation flights around following a judge’s order, Justice Department lawyers revealed this week. This Noem deportation decision marked the first time the government disclosed responsible parties for handing accused Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a March directive to reverse the planes. The government’s refusal led to a criminal contempt inquiry, which Boasberg said he was moving forward with last week.

The context of the contempt inquiry

These flights have become a focal point in the administration’s deportation strategy. The DOJ explained this week that after the judge ordered flights to return, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche provided Homeland Security Acting General Counsel Joseph Mazzara with “legal advice” regarding planes that had already departed. Mazzara passed that information along to Noem.

DOJ lawyers wrote that after receiving legal advice, Secretary Noem directed that detainees removed before the court order could be transferred to the custody of El Salvador. The DOJ insisted that Noem’s decision was lawful and consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the order. The government maintained it did not violate the March 15 order. Regarding Judge James Boasberg’s inquiry, lawyers stated no further proceedings are warranted.

invoking the 1798 act

In March, the administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 regarding Venezuelan citizens belonging to Tren de Aragua. More than 200 Venezuelan men were on board planes bound for El Salvador when the ACLU challenged their removal. Boasberg ordered the government to temporarily halt removals, including turning around midair flights.

Government arguments on discrepancies

The government argued there were discrepancies between the judge’s oral directives and his subsequent written order. While oral directives stated that removed members needed to be returned, DOJ lawyers wrote in the Tuesday filing that the written order said nothing about returning class members who had already been removed.

In April, Boasberg said the failure to return those flights shows a willful disregard sufficient to conclude probable cause exists for criminal contempt. A panel this month found that the judge could continue with his inquiry, noting the order was an essential response to executive branch conduct. The Independent has asked the Department of Homeland Security for comment regarding these revelations.