一名联邦法官发现了特朗普政府上个月藐视法庭的可能原因违抗他的命令让两架载有委内瑞拉黑帮成员的飞机掉头飞往萨尔瓦多。
美国地方法官詹姆斯·博斯伯格(James Boasberg)周三写道，政府“故意不服从司法命令”而不承担后果，将是对“宪法本身”的“严重嘲弄”。
博斯伯格上个月下令政府好转特朗普政府援引《外国敌人法》(Alien敌国Act)后，两架载有200多名所谓Tren de Aragua成员的航班飞往萨尔瓦多。该法案是一项战时权力，用于在几乎没有正当程序的情况下驱逐非公民，理由是该团伙是一个正在入侵美国的“混合犯罪国家”。
当局不成功的让航班掉头，但坚称他们“遵守了法律”，同时质疑博斯伯格命令的合法性。据DOJ称，博斯伯格指示航班返航的口头指示有缺陷，他随后的书面命令缺乏执行的必要解释。
博斯伯格指责特朗普政府在3月15日和16日发布命令阻止驱逐出境并命令这些人返回美国后的几个小时内进行了“匆忙的驱逐行动”。
“正如本意见将详述的那样，法院最终裁定，政府在那一天的行为表明了对其命令的故意无视，”他写道。
博斯伯格指出，他给了特朗普政府“足够的机会来纠正或解释他们的行为”，但“他们的回应都不令人满意。”
尽管最高法院最终空出他的法院命令，博阿斯伯格法官得出结论，特朗普政府在命令生效的三周内仍然无视命令，即使命令存在“法律缺陷”。
“宪法不容许故意不服从司法命令——尤其是那些宣誓维护宪法的协调部门的官员。允许这样的官员自由地“废除美国法院的判决”不仅会“破坏根据这些判决所获得的权利”;他写道，“这将是对‘宪法本身’的‘严重嘲弄’”。
博斯伯格给特朗普政府一周的期限来提交“一份声明，解释他们已经采取并将采取的措施。”
博斯伯格说,“清除”藐视法庭潜在裁决的方法是服从他最初的命令。
“在这种情况下，被告最明显的方式是主张对违反法院的全级TRO而被转移的个人的监护权，以便他们可以利用自己的权利，通过人身保护令程序质疑他们的可转移性，”博斯伯格写道，他指的是他发布的临时限制令。
“根据TRO的条款，政府不需要释放任何这些人，也不需要将他们送回祖国。法院还将给予被告提出其他合规方法的机会，法院将对此进行评估。”
如果特朗普政府不想清除博阿斯伯格的藐视法庭裁决，法官表示，他将“通过确定谁的“具体行为或不行为”导致了不遵守行为，来确定对不服从行为负责的个人。”
博斯伯格说，他将首先要求政府做出声明，如果这些声明被证明不令人满意，他将“继续进行证人宣誓作证的听证会或原告进行的宣誓作证。”
作为最后一个潜在的步骤，博斯伯格提出了他可以任命一名独立律师起诉政府藐视法庭的前景。
“根据联邦刑事诉讼规则，法院的下一步将是要求由政府的律师起诉藐视法庭罪，”博斯伯格写道。
他写道，如果政府“拒绝”或“司法利益要求”，法院将“指定另一名律师起诉藐视法庭罪”。
Trump administration likely acted in contempt of court by not turning around deportation flights, judge says
A federal judge has found probable cause that the Trump administration acted in contempt of court when officials last monthdefied his orderto turn around two planes carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.
The administration's "willful disobedience of judicial orders" without consequences would make "a solemn mockery" of "the Constitution itself," U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote Wednesday.
Boasberg last month ordered that the governmentturn aroundtwo flights carrying more than 200 alleged Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador after the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act -- a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little-to-no due process -- by arguing that the gang is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States.
Authoritiesfailedto turn the flights around, but have insisted that they "complied with the law" while questioning the legitimacy of Boasberg's order. According to the DOJ, Boasberg's oral instructions directing the flight to be returned were defective, and his subsequent written order lacked the necessary explanation to be enforced.
Boasberg faulted the Trump administration for conducting a "hurried removal operation" on March 15 and 16 in the hours after he issued an order blocking the deportations and ordering the men returned to the United States.
"As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order," he wrote.
Boasberg noted that he gave the Trump administration "ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions" yet "none of their responses has been satisfactory."
While the Supreme Court ultimatelyvacatedhis court order, Judge Boasberg concluded that the Trump administration still defied the order during the three weeks it was in effect, even if the order suffered from a "legal defect."
"The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders -- especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely 'annul the judgments of the courts of the United States' would not just 'destroy the rights acquired under those judgments'; it would make 'a solemn mockery' of 'the constitution itself,'" he wrote.
Boasberg gave the Trump Administration a one-week deadline to file "a declaration explaining the steps they have taken and will take to do so."
The way to "purge" the potential finding of contempt, Boasberg said, would be to obey his initial order.
"The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court's classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding," Boasberg wrote, referring to the temporary restraining order he issued.
"Per the terms of the TRO, the Government would not need to release any of those individuals, nor would it need to transport them back to the homeland. The Court will also give Defendants an opportunity to propose other methods of coming into compliance, which the Court will evaluate."
If the Trump Administration does not wish to purge Boasberg's contempt finding, the judge said he will "proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose "specific act or omission" caused the noncompliance."
Boasberg said he will begin by requiring declarations from the government, and if those prove to be unsatisfactory, he will "proceed either to hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs."
As a final potential step, Boasberg raised the prospect that he could appoint an independent attorney to prosecute the government for its contempt.
"The next step would be for the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government," Boasberg wrote.
If the Government "declines" or "the interest of justice requires," the Court will "appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt," he wrote.
