美国地方法官詹姆斯·博斯伯格，联邦法官阻止了特朗普政府驱逐出境根据周四提交的一份新文件，委内瑞拉移民在未经正当程序的情况下，指控司法部逃避“义务”，不遵守他关于提供更多驱逐航班信息的命令。
博斯伯格在周四的一项命令中说，在中午的最后期限过后，司法部的律师提交了一份代理美国司法部的书面声明移居根据宪法权利中心的说法，海关执法现场官员重复了有关驱逐航班的一般信息，内阁部长们仍在权衡是否援引国家机密特权，此举允许行政部门的负责人拒绝在法庭案件中出示证据，理由是证据是秘密信息，如果披露，将会损害国家安全或外交关系利益。
“这远远不够，”博斯伯格回应道。
博斯伯格下令提供更多有关驱逐飞行的信息，这是政府根据《外国敌人法》执行的，这是一项很少使用的战时权力。博斯伯格命令他们调转两架航班，政府称这两架航班将被指控的移民帮派成员驱逐到萨尔瓦多。官员们未能让这些航班返航。
特朗普政府尚未公布被驱逐出境的所谓帮派成员的姓名。
司法部最初以国家安全为由，拒绝提供更多有关航班的信息。
博斯伯格周四表示，他要求政府在3月25日之前说明原因，说明为什么政府迄今为止的回应以及未能将无证移民遣返美国没有违反他的临时限制令。
此外，他要求政府在周五上午10点之前提交一份参与特朗普内阁关于国家机密特权讨论的个人的宣誓声明，并在3月25日之前说明他们是否计划援引这项特权。
周四，美国广播公司新闻(ABC News)的卡伦·特拉弗斯(Karen Travers)问白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·莱维特(Karoline Leavitt)，如果政府确信他们遵守了法官的命令，为什么不交出有关驱逐航班的信息。
“我们相信我们已经遵守了，正如我在讲台上所说的那样，所有服从法官书面命令的航班都是在书面命令被推上法庭之前起飞的，”莱维特说。“总统完全在他的条款、他的第二条权力和他在《外国敌人法》下的权力范围内做出这些决定。”
本周早些时候，特朗普和一些众议院共和党人呼吁弹劾博阿斯伯格，特朗普称该法官为“激进左翼”
最高法院首席法官美国约翰·罗伯茨(John Roberts)就弹劾威胁发表了一份罕见的声明，表明司法和行政部门之间的意见截然不同。
罗伯茨在声明中说:“两个多世纪以来，弹劾不是对司法裁决分歧的适当回应，这一点已经得到确认。”"正常的上诉审查程序就是为此目的而存在的."
'Woefully insufficient': Federal judge accuses Justice Department of evading 'obligations' to comply with deportation flights request
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, the federal judge whoblocked the Trump administration from deportingVenezuelan immigrants that it alleges are members of the gang Tren de Aragua without due process, accused the Justice Department of evading "its obligations" to comply with his order for more information on the deportation flights, per a new filing on Thursday.
Boasberg said in an order Thursday that after a noon deadline, Justice Department attorneys filed a written declaration from an acting U.S.Immigrationand Customs Enforcement field officer, which repeated general information about the deportation flights and that Cabinet secretaries were still weighing whether to invoke the states secret privilege, a move that allows the head of an executive department to refuse to produce evidence in a court case on the grounds that the evidence is secret information that would harm national security or foreign relation interests if disclosed, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights.
"This is woefully insufficient," Boasberg said in response.
Boasberg ordered more information about the deportation flights, which the administration carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime authority. Boasberg ordered that they turn around two flights the administration said were deporting the alleged migrant gang members to El Salvador. Officials failed to turn those flights around.
The Trump administration has not yet released the names of the alleged gang members who were deported.
The Department of Justice initially refused to provide more information about the flights, citing national security concerns.
Boasberg said Thursday that he is requiring the government to show cause by March 25 on why its responses thus far and the failure to return the undocumented migrants to the U.S. did not violate his temporary restraining orders.
Additionally, he asked the government to file a sworn declaration by 10 a.m. Friday by an individual involved in Trump's Cabinet discussions over the state secrets privilege -- and to say by March 25 whether they plan to invoke the privilege.
On Thursday, ABC News' Karen Travers asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt why the administration wasn't turning over the information regarding the deportation flights if they are confident that they complied with the judge's order.
"We are confident that we've complied, and as I've said from the podium, all of the flights that were subject to the written order of the judge took off before the written order was pushed in the courtroom," Leavitt said. "And the president is all within his article, his Article II power and his authority under the Alien Enemies Act to make these decisions."
Earlier this week, Trump and some House Republicans called to impeach Boasberg, with Trump calling the judge "radical left."
Chief Justice of theUnited StatesJohn Roberts issued a rare statement on the impeachment threat, signaling a stark difference in opinion between the judicial and executive branches.
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said in the statement. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."
