The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Saturday, temporarily blocking the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants, seemed to break all of the rules of the game. The court issued its order, as dissenting Justice Alito said, “without giving the lower courts a chance to rule” and “without hearing from the opposing party.” But this development, as stunning as it was, should not be allowed to draw attention away from another extraordinary and far-reaching dimension to the migrant deportation issue.
In fact, the Saturday decision is an outgrowth of a previous Supreme Court ruling in March vacating an order by Washington D.C. federal district court Judge James E. Boasberg, which had also barred the Trump Administration from completing an initial round of deportations of illegal migrants – who were suspected of gang membership – to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Judge Boasberg had ruled that the migrants were denied due process by not being given an opportunity to challenge their deportations.
Although the Supreme Court agreed that the migrants were entitled to challenge their deportations and that they were also entitled to reasonable notice of impending deportation in order to contest them. However, the court went on to say that any challenges had to be filed in the places where they were being detained, which was in Texas and not in Washington where Judge Boasberg sat. Although the migrants were detained in Texas, their lawyers brought their lawsuit challenging the deportations in Washington, D.C., apparently seeking a judge favorable to the migrants, and the case was assigned to Judge Boasberg.
At all events, it appears that last Saturday’s hurried Supreme Court ruling was prompted by a fear that the notice of impending deportations was wholly inadequate. Whether the haste was justified, is, of course, an open question.
While the Supreme Court effectively annulled Judge Boasberg’s authority on the grounds that his court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, Judge Boasberg last week said that he would nonetheless initiate contempt proceedings against the Trump Administration over what he said were its failures to implement his March order between the time he issued it until the time the Supreme Court vacated it.
The Supreme Court’s decision, he wrote, “does not excuse the government’s violation. It is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order must be obeyed no matter how erroneous it may be, until a court reverses it.”
But Judge Boasberg’s logic eludes us. If there was no authority for him to have issued a judicial order, in the case, how can it be deemed legally binding for any period? So, we rather think that Judge Boasberg, known for his liberal leanings, is finding it hard to surrender his ability to strike a blow for the anti-Trump cause. And as we opine in this week’s companion editorial, NYS Attorney General Letitia James unfortunately seems to be suffering from the same disorder.
