Despite clear directives from a federal judge against the use of an 18th-century wartime law to expedite deportations, the Trump administration continued its flights, resulting in significant legal and ethical backlash.**
Court Ruling Rebuffs Deportation Strategy; Administration Presses On**
Court Ruling Rebuffs Deportation Strategy; Administration Presses On**
Federal judge's order to halt deportations ignored by the Trump administration, leading to transport of migrants amid ongoing controversy.**
A federal judge made a definitive ruling against the Trump administration's controversial use of an 18th-century wartime law for deportation purposes, mandating that any deportation flights already en route should return to their departure points. Unfazed, the administration proceeded to send over 200 migrants—including individuals suspected of gang affiliations—on three separate flights to El Salvador over the weekend.
Flight data reviewed by The New York Times further indicated that none of the three planes had successfully landed in El Salvador prior to the judge's directive, with one flight not even departing American soil until after the order was publicly available. During a court session, Justice Department attorney Abhishek Kambli contended that the administration had not contravened the judge’s order, arguing that until the ruling was officially documented, the directive to turn back planes was not binding. Kambli also maintained that the deportees on the third plane were not subject to the judge's sanctions.
The implications of the judge’s ruling and the administration's defiance have fueled an ongoing debate over enforcement policies and legal interpretations, spotlighting significant tensions between the executive and judicial branches of government.
