A federal judge's ruling prohibiting the use of outdated laws for deportation was not adhered to, resulting in the departure of three planes carrying 200 migrants to El Salvador despite explicit instruction to cease operations.
**Judicial Ruling Ignored as Deportation Flights Depart Amid Controversy**
**Judicial Ruling Ignored as Deportation Flights Depart Amid Controversy**
A federal judge's order to halt deportation flights was disregarded by the Trump administration, raising questions about compliance with judicial authority.
The recent actions of the Trump administration have come under scrutiny as evidence surfaces showing that federal judge James E. Boasberg’s order—prohibiting the deportation of migrants without hearings—was blatantly disregarded. The court ordered for any planes already airborne to return, yet over the weekend, three planes successfully transported more than 200 migrants, some allegedly linked to gang activity, to El Salvador.
A New York Times analysis revealed that despite the judicial order being issued at 6:48 PM on March 15, and two flights being already en route, neither of the aircraft returned as instructed. Disturbingly, one of the planes departed from Harlingen, Texas, shortly after the judge’s ruling was made public. During a court hearing the following Monday, a Justice Department lawyer contended that the administration acted within legal bounds, citing that the judge's written order lacked specifics concerning aircraft operations.
Additionally, it was argued that the third flight, while carrying deportees, was not subject to the judge’s mandate as their individual cases had not been addressed by the ruling. This situation has sparked a deeper examination of procedural adherence within the immigration enforcement structure and cast shadows over the respect for judicial mandates, leaving many advocates for migrant rights alarmed at the administration’s actions.
A New York Times analysis revealed that despite the judicial order being issued at 6:48 PM on March 15, and two flights being already en route, neither of the aircraft returned as instructed. Disturbingly, one of the planes departed from Harlingen, Texas, shortly after the judge’s ruling was made public. During a court hearing the following Monday, a Justice Department lawyer contended that the administration acted within legal bounds, citing that the judge's written order lacked specifics concerning aircraft operations.
Additionally, it was argued that the third flight, while carrying deportees, was not subject to the judge’s mandate as their individual cases had not been addressed by the ruling. This situation has sparked a deeper examination of procedural adherence within the immigration enforcement structure and cast shadows over the respect for judicial mandates, leaving many advocates for migrant rights alarmed at the administration’s actions.
