The Justice Department accused a federal judge of "digressive micromanagement" on Wednesday in relation to a case involving deportation flights that sent Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador over the weekend.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Justice Department to submit answers to five questions after it insisted Tuesday that the flights did not violate a court order. Boasberg granted an emergency order Saturday to temporarily block the flights from taking place for 14 days while his court considered the legality of using the 1798 wartime-era Alien Enemies Act to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals and alleged members of the violent gang Tren de Aragua.
"The Court has now spent more time trying to ferret out information about the Government’s flight schedules and relations with foreign countries than it did in investigating the facts before certifying the class action in this case," read a filing Wednesday that was co-signed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and others. "That observation reflects how upside-down this case has become, as digressive micromanagement has outweighed consideration of the case’s legal issues."
"The distraction of the specific facts surrounding the movements of an airplane has derailed this case long enough and should end until the Circuit Court has had a chance to weigh in. The Government respects this Court and has complied with its request to present the Government’s position on the legality of the Court’s [Temporary Restraining Order] and the Government’s compliance with that TRO," they wrote.
DOJ INSISTS EL SALVADOR DEPORTATION FLIGHTS DID NOT VIOLATE COURT ORDER
Boasberg ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to answer five questions, submitting declarations to him under seal by noon on Wednesday: "1) What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil and from where? 2) What time did it leave U.S. airspace? 3) What time did it land in which foreign country (including if it made more than one stop)? 4) What time were individuals subject solely to the Proclamation transferred out of U.S. custody? and 5) How many people were aboard solely on the basis of the Proclamation?"
However, the Justice Department said in their filing today that "Defendants are currently evaluating whether to invoke the state secrets privilege as to portions of the information sought by this Court’s order."
"Whether and how to invoke that privilege involves both weighty considerations and specific procedures that are not amenable to the 21-hour turnaround period currently provided by this Court’s order," it continued.
"The underlying premise of these orders, including the most recent one requiring the production of these facts ex parte today at noon, 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 two branches are coequal, and the Court’s continued intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch, especially on a non-legal and factually irrelevant matter, should end," the Justice Department added.
It also said "disclosure of the information sought could implicate the affairs of United States allies and their cooperation with the United States Government in fighting terrorist organizations" and "such disclosure would unquestionably create serious repercussions for the Executive Branch’s ability to conduct foreign affairs."
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP DEPORTATION FLIGHTS
"What began as a dispute between litigants over the President’s authority to protect the national security and manage the foreign relations of the United States pursuant to both a longstanding Congressional authorization and the President’s core constitutional authorities has devolved into a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding," the Justice Department declared.
Boasberg responded to the Justice Department Wednesday by giving it another day to answer his five questions "or to invoke the state-secrets doctrine and explain the basis for such invocation," according to court filings.
"Mere hours before their filing deadline and characterizing the Court’s proceedings as ‘a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding,’ Defendants seek to stay the Court’s Order requiring them to produce in camera particular information," Boasberg wrote. "Although their grounds for such request at first blush are not persuasive, the Court will extend the deadline for one more day."
"The Court seeks this information, not as a ‘micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition,’ but to determine if the Government deliberately flouted its Orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be," Boasberg added.
TRUMP CALLS FOR JUDGE IN DEPORTATION LEGAL BATTLE TO BE IMPEACHED
In granting the emergency order Saturday, Boasberg sided with the plaintiffs – Democracy Forward and the ACLU – who had argued that the deportations would likely pose imminent and "irreparable" harm to the migrants under the time proposed.
Boasberg also ordered the Trump administration on Saturday to immediately halt any planned deportations and to notify their clients that "any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States," he said.
However, the decision apparently came too late to stop two planes filled with more than 200 migrants who were deported to El Salvador.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News in an interview that a plane carrying hundreds of migrants, including more than 130 persons removed under the Alien Enemies Act, had already "left U.S. airspace" by the time the order was handed down.
Fox News' Breanne Deppisch and David Spunt contributed to this report.