Governments usually have advantages when defending policies that oppose legal challenges. Courts generally postpone the de facto declaration and formal representation of the administrative department of what is happening, rather than examining what is actually happening.
But the flood of lawsuits unleashed by President Trump's second term's radical opening fight, coupled with distortions and a habit of utter lies, tests its practice.
Tensions manifest the obstacles the court faces in trying to grasp the truth, highlighting the extent to which the president's brave manipulation of facts has actively strengthened his authority and paved the way for him to support his agenda.
The administration, accused of refusing a court order by deporting hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador, has refuted that judges have no right to issue an order.
However, all elements of that claim are subject to serious disputes, at least outside the court.
The administration's efforts to shape the landscape based on the fact that legal and political battles over deportation are fought are part of a wider pattern. It employs what appears to be a misleading or deceptive position in other lawsuits.
Despite Trump himself publicly declaring billionaire Elon Musk as the agency's dismangu initiative known as Doge, the administration, for example, has filed court filings denying the relationship. On paper, someone else is officially the director, and Musk is the White House advisor.
The administration also argues that in reality it follows court orders to lift the freeze on spending while the institution continues to cut off money. loophole? The agency's political appointees technically called other legal authorities to maintain the funds.
In the case of deportation, the heart of the administration's legal debate is that it has nothing to do with judges perceived facts, as Trump can determine reality.
The incident centers around the Alien Enemy Law, a 1798 law allowing citizens of hostile nations during war. Without a personal immigration hearing, Trump declared that administration officials could use it to deport those they consider to be members of a Venezuelan gang called Tren de Aragua.
On Saturday, James E. Boasberg, the Supreme Court Justice of the District of Columbia, prevented the government from being deported based on an invitation to Trump's law. The administration promptly urged the federal court of appeals to overturn the order, claiming that various statements by Trump had established legal truths.
“The decision to determine whether there has been a 'aggression' or 'predatory invasion', whether an organization is well linked to a foreign or government, or whether national security interests are involved in getting caught up in the AEA is a political issue that is fundamentally answered by the President.”
A White House spokesperson pointed to a social media post Tuesday that Trump attacked Obama's appointee Judge Boasberg and called for a blast each.
The Justice Department also urged the Court of Appeals to take Judge Boasberg out of the case, but suggested he could not be trusted to protect confidential information. (His past as a presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Journal Surveillance Court means he has extensive experience overseeing terrorism and spying cases.) Attorney General Pam Bondy accused him of supporting “terrorists against American security.”
But putting aside whether there is evidence that the Venezuelans were flew to El Salvador and held in high-security prisons, is it true that in fact gang member Tren de Aragua is a terrorist group?
Last month, the State Department designated Tren de Aragua along with several other drug cartels and gangs as a “foreign terrorist organization” that followed previous executive orders by Trump.
But it was a noticeable change in how the administrative department used the powers granted by the Congress to be considered group terrorist organizations. In the past, such groups were primarily extremist Islamists, along with some communists and derivatives of the Irish Republican army.
By definition, terrorists are people who use criminal violence to promote ideological objectives and enforce policy change.
Tren de Aragua is clearly a dangerous criminal organization, but in all appearances it is not motivated by a particular ideology, as it pursues human smuggling, ransoming and drug trafficking. Rather, the agenda appears to be enjoying illegal benefits.
In an email, the White House press listed a series of crimes accused of committing Tren de Aragua members, asking, “Doesn't TDA members look like NYT terrorists? Odd Hill dies.”
Ali Souphan, a former FBI agent who was the lead investigator who targeted al-Qaeda during the period surrounding the September 11 terrorist attack, said the administration should provide evidence that Tren de Aragua is trying to influence the US government's actions before calling for terrorists.
“This is all evil organisation I've read, but you should only apply accusations of 'terrorism' to actions that are legally compatible with crimes.
On Friday, before his move to El Salvador, Trump signed a declaration calling for alien enemy laws against Tren de Lagua. He said the gang had discovered and declared that they would commit an invasion at the direction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government and “play an irregular war.”
“I'll 'find and declare' these de facto decisions,' Trump said.
Trump did not say whether there is an intelligence reporting community rating on Tren de Aragua's relationship with the Venezuelan government, or, if so, whether it supports his findings of fact.
His most specific claim was that Tarek El Aisami, the gang's governor of the Aragua region, had significant growth from 2012 to 2017. Maduro then appointed him as vice president.
The Justice Department, which applied to the Court of Appeal, cited Trump's “findings” as facts that assessed the issue, including repeated observations by the court about Isami. “The president was able to properly find that it was a de facto arm of the Maduro administration, given the extent to which the TDA is entangled with the structure of the Venezuela national structure.”
However, both documents omitted seemingly important facts. Isami is no longer part of the Maduro regime and is prosecuting him for corruption. He also did not mention that Maduro and his aides expressed hostility towards Tren de Aragua.
During Saturday's hearing, Judge Boasberg expressed skepticism about the administration's debate before instructing the government to suspend ongoing deportation under Trump's orders. He showed that he made the arguments made by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union persuasive. They included that the law applies only to hostile conduct committed by enemy states, being tolerant of war and not related to illegal immigrants or “non-state actors like criminal gangs.”
Judge Boasberg ordered the government not to exclude anyone based on the alien enemy laws, and verbally told the Justice Department to have already jumped into the air. The written version of that order omitted the language related to the plane.
After it was revealed that the plane carrying the Venezuelans to El Salvador had not turned around, the administration appeared to have multiple arguments as to why it should not be counted as contrary to court orders.
First, he lacked jurisdiction as the administration said that migrants were already in international airspace when the judge issued a written version of his order. It doesn't explain why it makes a difference to a jurisdiction. The man maintained US custody during the flight, and the judge's orders were directed to officials in charge of the operation.
However, in an application Tuesday, the Justice Department proposed another rationale. The man had already been “deleted” the moment he left US airspace before the order. Officials also told the judge that the third plane that left Texas after the order carried the man who was subject to the final removal order and was not deported under the 1798 Act.
The administration also suggests that Judge Boasberg does not have the rightful authority to intervene. The courts usually have no jurisdiction over the president's act of diplomacy, his authority under the Foreign Enemy Act, and his core II powers.
The Justice Department has briefly cleaned up the president repeatedly in certain issues of national security and foreign affairs, where he exercises powers that the court should not review.
Judges and judges tend to be eccentric to the administrative divisions of such areas, but the Supreme Court not only scrutinized such conduct by the President, but also ruled them.
The brief also cited a World War I case in which the Supreme Court stated that Germans deported under the alien enemy law could not challenge the deportation in court. Still, the incident occurred in a declared war.
Trump's lies and exaggerations stem from his time as a bold real estate developer who promotes his projects and himself. In a 2023 ruling against Trump, the judge said he continued to commit fraud by creating a “fantasy world” when explaining the size and value of his building.
He later rose to national Republican politics by spreading the lie that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii.
And in his first term, Trump issued a steady stream of false claims about minor and important issues, whether it was the size of his first crowd or the size of the 2020 election winner. The Washington Post counted 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first term.
Democratic forward Sky Perryman, who helps to represent the plaintiffs after a hearing before Judge Boasberg on Monday, criticized the de facto premise of the government's legal debate.
“The president is not the king. All Americans should be concerned about this illegal spread of wartime efforts when we are not actually at war,” she said.
