美国公民自由联盟(ACLU)周一在华盛顿特区法官詹姆斯·博斯伯格(James Boasberg)面前提交的《外国敌人法》(AEA)案件中提出，在华盛顿特区地方法院的另一个案件中，特朗普政府采取了与其在AEA案件中的论点不一致的立场;特别是在被拘留者的“转移”过程何时被视为完成的问题上。
在AEA一案中，政府辩称，除其他外，它没有违反法院关于驱逐航班调头的命令，因为一旦飞往萨尔瓦多的两架飞机离开美国领空，驱逐就“已经发生了”。
“在那之后，政府没有根据《美国行政审批法》将任何集体成员‘除名’，”DOJ的律师在3月25日的一份法庭文件中写道，“当然，在禁令之前，政府已经将一些集体成员除名了。但备忘录中没有任何内容表明政府必须将已经被驱逐的集体成员送回美国，”文件中写道。
“事实上，政府不可能将他们从一个他们已经离开的地方‘转移’，”政府律师写道。
在周一提交的回应中，美国公民自由联盟认为政府的立场是错误的，认为DOJ的理论与法院的命令以及同一美国地区法院的“常识和政府在其他案件中的立场”背道而驰。
美国公民自由联盟引用了3月10日政府在另一起案件中提交的文件，该文件涉及将移民拘留者转移到关塔那摩湾的可能性。在该文件中，DOJ辩称，"为了实现离境或驱逐，外国人必须合法进入另一个国家"，而且"在个人到达最终目的地之前，驱逐程序尚未完成"
“事实上，如果一旦被拘留者的航班离开美国领空，政府根据[移民和归化法]拥有的广泛驱逐和拘留权力立即终止，这将导致一种不可能的局面。3月10日的申请称:“被安排执行ICE遣返任务的被拘留者必须继续接受(强制执行和遣返行动)监管，并遵守ICE转移和运输政策，直到他们抵达遣返国，只有到那时才能放弃监管。”
博斯伯格法官还没有对美国公民自由联盟强调DOJ在这两个案件中采取的所谓矛盾立场进行权衡，他可能不会这样做。周四将举行听证会，讨论特朗普政府是否无视他让飞机返回美国的命令。
在博斯伯格案之前的AEA案中，DOJ提出了其他几个论点来解释它为什么没有违反法院的命令，包括博斯伯格的书面命令没有命令飞机掉头;裁定和评估总统固有的第二条权力超出了法院的权限，DOJ律师在法庭文件中辩称，这些权力“足以独立支持他对美国境外航班和恐怖分子的指示”
DOJ has contradicted itself on when immigration removal is complete, ACLU argues
In a court filing Monday in the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) case before D.C. Judge James Boasberg, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contended that in another case in D.C. District Court the Trump administration has taken a position at odds with its arguments in the AEA case; specifically over the issue of when the process of "removal" of a detainee is considered complete.
In the AEA case, the government has argued -- among other things -- that it did not violate the court's orders to turn deportation flights around because the removals had "already occurred" once the two planes heading to El Salvador were out of United States airspace.
"The Government did not 'remove' any class members after that time under the AEA," DOJ lawyers wrote in a court filing on March 25, "To be sure, the Government had already removed some before the injunction. But nothing in the minute order suggested that the Government had to return already-removed class members to the United States," the filing states.
"Indeed, the Government could not possibly have 'removed' them from a place they had already departed," the government lawyers wrote.
In its response filed Monday, the ACLU contended that the government's position is wrong, arguing that the DOJ's theory runs counter to the court's orders and to "common sense and the government's own position in other cases" in the same U.S. District Court.
The ACLU cited a March 10 government filing in a separate case pertaining to the potential transfer of immigration detainees to Guantanamo Bay. In that filing, the DOJ argued that "[to] effectuate a departure or removal, the alien must lawfully enter another country" and that "the removal process is not complete until the individual reaches the final destination."
"Indeed, it would lead to an impossible situation if the government's broad removal and detention powers under the [Immigration and Naturalization Act] were held to instantly terminate as soon as the detainee's flight left U.S airspace. Detainees placed on ICE-operated removal missions must remain subject to [Enforcement and Removal Operations] custody and adhere to ICE transfer and transportation policies until they have arrived at the country of removal, only at which point custody can be relinquished," the March 10 filing stated.
Judge Boasberg has not yet weighed in on the ACLU's highlighting of the allegedly contradictory positions taken by the DOJ in the two cases, and he may not. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday on the question of whether the Trump administration acted in defiance of his order to return planes to the U.S.
In the AEA case before Boasberg, the DOJ has advanced several other arguments for why it did not violate the court's order, including that Boasberg's written order did not command the planes to turn around; and that it was beyond the Court's authority to adjudicate and assess the president's inherent Article II powers, which DOJ lawyers argue in court filings were "independently sufficient to support his directions with respect to flights and terrorists outside the United States."
