Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(153,419 posts)
Tue Mar 18, 2025, 07:48 PM Mar 18

DOJ says disclosing migrant flight information is 'inappropriate'

Source: Roll Call

Posted March 18, 2025 at 2:43pm


The Trump administration told a federal judge Tuesday that it should not have to provide information on the timing of flights that carried migrants for deportation, amid an accusation the executive branch defied a court order to halt the planes. In a three-page filing, the Justice Department said Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has no grounds for requiring the U.S. government to share that information.

“The Government maintains that there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate, because even accepting Plaintiffs’ account of the facts, there was no violation of the Court’s written order (since the relevant flights left U.S. airspace, and so their occupants were ‘removed,’ before the order issued), and the Court’s earlier oral statements were not independently enforceable as injunctions,” the filing says.

In terse language seemingly to underscore the significance of refusing to supply the information, the filing adds: “The Government stands on those arguments.” The DOJ said that if the judge still wants information, it should be in a declaration given only to the judge and not disclosed to the civil rights groups who filed a lawsuit to stop the deportation flights, “in order to protect sensitive information bearing on foreign relations.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward filed the lawsuits over the weekend after President Donald Trump invoked a 1798 law known as the Aliens Enemies Act to justify the immediate removals of migrants suspected of members of the Tren de Aragua. The groups say the removals were done without “any hearing or meaningful review” and regardless of any defenses they have for removal, and that some of the plaintiffs had been targeted by the gang and one was mistakenly labeled as member because of tattoos.

Read more: https://rollcall.com/2025/03/18/doj-says-disclosing-migrant-flight-information-is-inappropriate/

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

TomSlick

(12,426 posts)
1. If I was the judge. I know, God forbid.
Tue Mar 18, 2025, 08:06 PM
Mar 18

I would order the DoJ attorney to appear tomorrow at 1:00 pm to be asked the same question. I would advise them that if they were going to refuse to answer the question, they should bring a toothbrush.

turbinetree

(26,140 posts)
2. Time to bring the DoJ into court and throw someone in jail.........and ask why have rules of law........
Tue Mar 18, 2025, 08:34 PM
Mar 18

republianmushroom

(20,033 posts)
3. Way pass time. IMO
Tue Mar 18, 2025, 09:17 PM
Mar 18

Where are the DUers DOJ supporters ? For many years they were in anybody's face who said anything negative about the DOJ. Now, CRICKETS.

BumRushDaShow

(153,419 posts)
5. You do know the difference between what I keeping saying are "figurehead appointees" and civil servants?
Wed Mar 19, 2025, 04:51 AM
Mar 19


DU likes throwing civil service employees under the bus because they obsessively fixate on the revolving door figureheads that Presidents appoint who will be gone when the next President is elected. It's a bizarre phenomena.

BumRushDaShow

(153,419 posts)
7. He was a judge for several decades and became a figurehead "appointee"
Wed Mar 19, 2025, 11:33 AM
Mar 19
He replaced previous figureheads that people on DU ignore who were his predecessor AGs like Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions both under 45.

You do know that J6 happened when Bill Barr's Acting (after Barr resigned in December 2020) - Jeff Rosen - was "in charge", right?

BumRushDaShow

(153,419 posts)
9. No - you seem to not get what I mean by the revolving door of appointees
Wed Mar 19, 2025, 12:10 PM
Mar 19

When you say "DOJ", it is NOT the figurehead appointee. There are 115,000 employees that are part of DOJ that do a myriad of things.

You would rather think that DOJ = only the Attorney General, who magically and personally, carries out all of the investigations everywhere in the U.S. (including for ATF, DEA, FBI), goes to every single court to argue in trials on behalf of every one of the 93 U.S. Attorney Offices, and also serves as a guard, simultaneously, in every federal prison under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons, etc.,

Good luck with that.

republianmushroom

(20,033 posts)
10. True 115,000 employee are still civil servants but where are the DU'ers
Wed Mar 19, 2025, 12:22 PM
Mar 19

that bashed anybody that spoke ill of the DOJ including the appointed AG ? They don't seem to be supporting those 115,000 civil servant and current AG that still work for the DOJ. Silents, Crickets, are what we are hearing now. Where is this support ?

BumRushDaShow

(153,419 posts)
12. Here is what I just posted in a different thread on a similar subject
Wed Mar 19, 2025, 12:52 PM
Mar 19
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3421391

That is why there has been a continual push for "criminal justice reform"

The wealthy can get the "best due process that money can buy".

Whenever info is posted about those reform efforts, the OPs get yawns.

But that has nothing to do with the revolving door of Presidential appointees that fill the various Department head/Cabinet slots.

Few on DU will talk about Bill Barr or Jeff Sessions, both of whom were 45's AGs during his first term. In fact, nothing at all is mentioned about Jeff Rosen who was "Acting AG" during the January 6 insurrection, and little is even mentioned about Pam Bondi today.

But they had a lot to say about Eric Holder who was AG under Obama for most of his 2 terms and probably would have gotten started on Loretta Lynch except that she was only serving out the remainder of Holder's term after he left, and before 45 got in.

I wonder why?

I worked for a HHS agency for over 30 years and served under 6 Presidents and 8 Secretaries of HHS. Federal employees don't fixate on and obsess over these figureheads. They are "here today, gone tomorrow... NEXT!"
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»DOJ says disclosing migra...