During the weekend, the Trump administration ignored the Federal Judge’s order not to deport a group of Venezuelan men, violating instructions that could not be more clear or more directly.
Lawyers of the Ministry of Justice later justified the administration’s actions with the allegations that many legal experts said their trivial borders.
They said that the line between the arguments that support the right to the court’s orders and the explicit challenge has become a senior Ghosamer, which raises the issue of whether the last clash between President Trump and the judiciary is up to a constitutional crisis.
Legal scientists say this is no longer the right investigation. Mr. Trump already says to separate the authorities in the heart of the constitutional system, as they say, and the right question now is how it will change the nation.
“If any person is detained or removed based on the administration’s assertion that he can do this without a judicial review or due legal procedures,” he said. Jamal GreenColombia’s law professor, “the president confirms the dictatorial authority and the” constitutional crisis “does not embody the seriousness of the situation.
Mr. Trump raised the risks on Tuesday by calling for the dismissal of the judge who issued the matter, James E Boasberg from the Federal Provincial Court in Washington, Wasfa On social media As “the left left left.”
The president did so even when cases began at hand in a case seemed to be heading to the Supreme Court.
A few hours later, the chief judge John J. Roberts Junior is an unusual statement, apparently driven by such guidelines, and perhaps by providing substances from dismissal against Judge Pasperg by a Republican member in the House of Representatives.
“For more than two centuries, it has been proven that the dismissal is not an appropriate response to the dispute over the judicial decision.” “There is a regular appeal review process for this purpose.”
In his appearance on Fox News, Mr. Trump indicated that the chief of judges did not mention him by name. However, the fencing statements, which come above the confrontation of the minimum deportation, fueled a feeling that the clash that has long predicted between Mr. Trump and the federal authority has been completely involved.
Aziz huqA law professor at the University of Chicago said that the evaluation of whether the designated development is a constitutional crisis “generally unhelpful.”
Professor Hook said: “I think it is useful to say that this brings us to a completely different kind of constitutional system, which is no longer characterized by the laws that link officials and can be enforced.” “In other words, the law becomes a tool to harm the enemies, but not to link those who rule. This is a constitutional matter completely different from the output we spent for a long time.”
The disputed guidance was issued in a hearing on Saturday by Judge Pasperg. It sought to stop the removal of more than 200 immigrants said to be members of the Venezuelan gang to El Salvador, after Mr. Trump called the war authorities in the 1798 foreign enemies law to inform them of their deportation. The Trump administration ignored this, issued by the seat, to return the planes in the air to the United States.
“However, it has been accomplished, whether it is about a plane or no one on board or those who cover this on the plane, I leave you,” Judge Pasperj told government lawyer. “But this is something you need to make sure to comply with him immediately.”
The planes continued to fly.
In a hearing on Monday, another government lawyer said that the administration was not bound by the oral system, no matter how specific, but only by entering the list of the effort that summarizes it in public terms, without referring to the planes, but starting with the phrase “as we discussed in today’s session.”
The administration may win well before the judges in the basic cases of the case, which involves difficult constitutional questions about the presidential authority over national security and immigration. But these cases are separate from the current cases: Should the president obey the orders of the court, which he claims to be wrong while appealing them?
Caroline Levit, the White House press secretary, defended the behavior of the administration On social media.
“The administration did not refuse to comply with the court’s order,” she wrote, adding that “the written order and the actions of the administration are not inconsistent.” She did not address whether the administration had complied to direct the oral judge.
Ms. Levitte added that Judge Bouasberg had overcome his authority. She said: “One judge in one city cannot direct the movements of a plane carrying foreign foreign terrorists who have been physically expelled from the American soil,” she said.
All of this might be, but the matter of the judge through the mouth was not difficult to understand.
Legal experts said, if there is authentic doubt about what Judge Boasberg means, then the best practice is to request clarification or appeal.
“He must go without saying that, in the Ministry of Justice, the ruling of the road is that, in the absence of a real emergency, the government is compatible with judicial orders, even if the orders are unclear, so that they can reverse-either by the source judge or a high court,” Andrew C. National review. “It is right to complain about the bitterness of the court, but it should not be ignored, and less intended.”
Mr. McCarthy argued that the administration chose a different path. “It seems that the government is intentionally inciting fireworks,” he wrote. “This seems to be a terrible legal strategy, but it may be to win politics … at least for a short time,” he added, as an engineering user for confirmation.
In 1967, if the priest, Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, was involved, The Supreme Court ruled It is not entitled to a constitutional test, a constitutional test, which is a lawful court that prevents them from demonstrating through a march in Birmingham, Alaa.
The correct approach, written by Judge Potter Stewart to the majority, was to demand the courts to clarify, amend or dissolve the Zarbian order. “In the fair management of justice,” he wrote, “No man can be the ruling in his case, whatever his station, whatever his motives.”
The lawyer, who represented the government in the Monday, had another argument: Judge Bumsberg was unable to do the aircraft to wrap as soon as they left the American airspace. This confirmation was also classified as not short by many legal experts.
“The administration has this completely wrong,” Hana L. BuxbauumProfessor of Law at Indiana University, written in Blog post. “The judge orders the administration to take action within the United States – that is, to direct the aircraft to circumvent. This education will in turn lead to something else (the pilots will change the path), but this does not make it outside the non -short borders.”
She added that the judges are routine to order people in the United States to cause things to happen abroad, such as delivery of evidence or assets.
Professor Qatar admitted that “there was often no uncertainty about what the court order required against an agency.”
But there are limits. He said: “The Trump administration pushes this uncertainty to the point of collapse, just as the idea of the executive should comply with the laws of the collapse point.”
Pamela Carlan, a professor of law at Stanford, said the development was a symbol of how the Trump administration is spent in the first months in his post.
Professor Carlan said: “The problem with this administration is not just sharp episodes, like what is happening with Judge Boasberg and Venezuelan Deportation.” “It is a chronic lack of respect for the constitutional standards and other signs of the government.”
When asked whether the nation had reached a turning point that was drowned in a constitutional crisis, Professor Carlan asked about the hypothesis. She said, “The turning point” indicates a world where things are fine even suddenly, not. “But we already exceeded the first point.”
Professor Green said that the maximum view of the administration of the presidential authority, which was exaggerated by its lawyers, could escalate with Mr. Trump behavior without restraint.
“The executive branch, which works without internal legal restrictions, but only on the basis of its ability to move away from things, whether politically or legal, is in itself sufficient to produce a constitutional crisis,” he said. “The president who does everything he wants until someone stops him is a constitutional crisis, whether sometimes stopped.”
Mr. Trump was not ashamed to demand power. “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” Books on social media last month.
The administration seems to speak sometimes to fans at one time. In court, she says she is compatible with the message if it is not the spirit of judicial orders. In public communications, the administration and its allies adopt the language of challenge, especially by attacking judges.
But in other environments, Mr. Trump defended the judges of what he called illegal criticism. Last week, In notes in the Ministry of Justice“It should be illegal and affect the judges,” he said.
He was mostly defending Judge Eilen M. Canon from the southern province in Florida, who rejected a criminal case against him. But he survived thinking about the Supreme Court.
He said about the court’s criticism: “They do not want bad publicity, and this is truly in my opinion.” “It should be illegal, and it may be illegal in a form. There is no difference from speaking to a judge or screaming to a judge or doing everything you have to do in a court.”
