White House Critiques Judge’s Order Halting Deportation Flights to El Salvador

White House Critiques Judge’s Order Halting Deportation Flights to El Salvador

The White House has voiced strong objections to a federal judge’s ruling that seeks to block recent deportation flights from the United States to El Salvador. This action, which comes amid the Trump administration’s efforts to increase deportations, has been dismissed by Central American leaders, who labeled it as being too late.

Context of the Deportation Flights

On Friday, President Donald Trump utilized the Alien Enemies Act from 1798, which grants the executive branch the authority to deport citizens of nations considered hostile. Historically, this law has seen limited use, being invoked during significant conflicts such as the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The application of this act signifies a significant shift in U.S. deportation policies.

Legal Challenges to Deportation Initiatives

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg recently ordered an abrupt cessation of the deportation flights to assess the legality of Trump’s reliance on the historic act. However, reports indicated that the aircraft carrying the deportees had already left U.S. airspace at the time the judge issued his ruling.

Response from the White House

In a statement released to the press, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that the administration had not ignored the court’s orders. She characterized the judge’s ruling as lacking a lawful basis, highlighting that deportations had already taken place.

Leavitt stated, “The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist aliens had already been removed from U.S. territory. The written order and the Administration’s actions do not conflict.” This indicates a firm stance from the White House regarding the enforcement of its immigration policies.

The Implications of the Judge’s Decision

Furthermore, Leavitt referenced precedents set by the Supreme Court, noting that federal courts generally do not have jurisdiction over the President’s management of foreign affairs. She argued, “A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.” This assertion illustrates the complexities involved in the legal battles surrounding immigration enforcement.

El Salvador’s President Weighs In

On Sunday, Nayib Bukele, President of El Salvador, responded to Judge Boasberg’s ruling lightheartedly. He posted on social media, commenting, “Oopsie… too late,” while sharing videos that showed heavily armed Salvadoran authorities receiving the deportees. The imagery depicted the alleged gang members being processed, including head-shaving rituals as part of their intake into the Salvadoran prison system.

Details of the Deportation Operation

This recent operation saw a total of 261 deportees returned to El Salvador, categorized by their offenses. Included in this figure were 137 individuals deported under the Alien Enemies Act, 101 Venezuelans removed under Title 8 regulations, and 21 members of the notorious MS-13 gang. Notably, among them were two ringleaders identified as special cases.

Criminal Backgrounds of the Deportees

A senior Trump administration official confirmed these numbers and outlined the serious charges faced by the deportees. Alleged crimes included heinous acts such as kidnapping, sexual abuse of minors, aggravated assault, robbery, and violent assaults on law enforcement personnel. Such statistics underline the administration’s rationale for pursuing aggressive deportation policies.

Broader Context and Ongoing Developments

The controversy surrounding this situation is part of a broader national debate on immigration and deportation practices. Supporters of stringent immigration policies argue that such measures are essential for national security and public safety. Critics, however, raise concerns about the implications of utilizing historical laws and the potential overreach of executive power.

A Continuing Legal and Political Battle

As legal battles continue to unfold, the interplay between judicial authority and executive power remains a contentious issue. The outcome of these proceedings may set significant precedents regarding the limits of presidential power in immigration matters.

The White House’s stance reflects a commitment to its immigration agenda, while simultaneously igniting discussions about the balance of power within the U.S. government. It remains to be seen how the judicial system will respond to the administration’s assertions and the implications this will have on future deportation strategies.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.