Trump Administration Shields Migrant Flights With Legal Privilege/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration invoked the state secrets privilege to withhold details about deporting Venezuelan migrants under an 18th-century wartime law. The case has sparked legal battles over due process and executive power. A federal appeals court is now weighing whether to allow the deportations to resume.
Trump Deportation Case Quick Looks
- Trump administration invokes state secrets to withhold deportation flight info.
- Venezuelans deported to El Salvador under Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
- Judge Boasberg questions whether government defied court order to halt flights.
- DOJ claims revealing migrant flight data would harm national security.
- Appeals court hearing reveals sharp judicial divide over legal process.
- One judge says even WWII Nazis had more rights than migrants.
- Venezuelan officials seek release of 238 migrants held in El Salvador.
- Trump calls for impeachment and disbarment of Judge Boasberg.
- SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts rebukes calls to impeach over rulings.
- Deportations part of Trump crackdown on alleged gang affiliations.
Trump Administration Shields Migrant Flights With Legal Privilege
Deep Look
The Trump administration on Monday formally invoked the “state secrets privilege” to block a federal judge from obtaining detailed information about deportation flights that transferred hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. The case centers on the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a rarely used wartime statute last employed during World War II.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had requested specific data on when the planes landed and who was on board, as part of a court challenge over whether the deportations violated due process. However, the Justice Department argued that disclosing the information would endanger national security and international relations.
The legal fight has become a lightning rod for the Trump administration, which is attempting to portray the deported Venezuelans as gang members affiliated with the Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal organization. President Donald Trump has issued a proclamation branding the gang as an invading force, using that designation to justify expedited deportations without court hearings.
Boasberg’s initial ruling blocked the deportations and ordered that the migrants be returned to the U.S., citing a “strong public interest in preventing mistaken deportation.” However, the administration proceeded with the flights, prompting the judge to question whether his orders were ignored.
During a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Monday, government attorneys sought to reverse Boasberg’s decision. Judge Patricia Millett, a Democratic appointee, expressed deep skepticism, saying the immigrants were receiving fewer legal protections than Nazis detained during WWII.
“We certainly dispute the Nazi analogy,” said DOJ attorney Drew Ensign.
Millett was one of three judges hearing the case, with Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, appearing more sympathetic to the administration. Walker suggested the lawsuit should have been filed in Texas, where many of the migrants were detained, rather than Washington, D.C.
“You could have filed the exact same complaint you filed here in Texas district court,” Walker said.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Lee Gelernt, of the ACLU, responded that they were unsure where all the detainees were being held, noting the secretive nature of the deportations.
“This has all been done in secret,” Gelernt said. He also argued that the administration had intentionally used the wartime law to “short circuit” standard immigration procedures, making it nearly impossible to mount individual legal challenges before the migrants were flown out of the country.
A third judge on the panel, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, did not ask questions during the two-hour hearing, leaving her position unclear.
Meanwhile, Venezuelan government attorneys on Monday filed legal action in El Salvador seeking the release of 238 of its nationals held in a maximum-security prison following the deportations. The move adds diplomatic tension to an already controversial case.
The administration’s approach has drawn sharp rebukes from legal scholars, civil rights groups, and lawmakers. Critics argue that the use of the Alien Enemies Act to bypass standard legal protections represents a dangerous expansion of executive power.
Judge Boasberg, appointed by former President Barack Obama, remains at the center of the conflict. During a separate hearing Friday, he pledged to determine whether his order to halt the flights was defied, and whether oral instructions from the bench should have been followed. The Justice Department maintains that only written orders are binding and that those flights had already departed before any written directive was issued.
Trump has lashed out at Boasberg on social media, questioning his impartiality and calling for his disbarment. He and several allies have even floated impeachment—prompting a rare public statement from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who warned that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
Despite escalating rhetoric, the legal battle now shifts to the appellate court, which is expected to decide soon whether to lift the current block on deportations. The outcome could shape future use of wartime authorities in immigration enforcement and test the boundaries of executive privilege.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.