LightNews LightNews
debrasimes.bsky.social
@debrasimes.bsky.social
38 followers 32 following 28 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
nycsouthpaw.bsky.social
Judge Boasberg’s 46-page memorandum opinion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA J.G.G., et al., Plaintiffs, V. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 25-766 (JEB) MEMORANDUM OPINION On the evening of Saturday, March 15, 2025, this Court issued a written Temporary Restraining Order barring the Government from transferring certain individuals into foreign custody pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. At the time the Order issued, those individuals were on planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting their removability in a federal court, as the law requires. Trump v. J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025) (per curiam). Rather than comply with the Court's Order, the Government continued the hurried removal operation. Early on Sunday morning — hours after the Order issued — it transferred two planeloads of passengers protected by the TRO into a Salvadoran mega-prison. As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt. The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory. Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Document 81 Filed 04/16/25 Page 2 of 46 One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court's later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government's violation. Instead, 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. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process - such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320. That foundational "rule of law" answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. See id. at 320. The rule "reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case," no matter how "exalted his station" or "righteous his motives." Id. at 320-21. 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." United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115, 136 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.). "So fatal a result must be deprecated by all." Id. I. Background A. Factual Background As just noted, the injunction in question was issued on the evening of Saturday, March 15, a day of events that moved at breakneck speed because of the Government's apparent effort to remove individuals more quickly than the judicial proceedings in which it was actively 2
April 16, 2025 at 4:15 PM