Trump Administration Legal Filing Uses Judge Boasberg’s Own Words Against Him
In a powerful new legal filing, the Trump administration has turned the tables on U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of overstepping his authority by blocking the deportation of illegal immigrants — including known gang members — to El Salvador. The administration’s filing dismantles the judge’s arguments using his own prior statements, casting doubt on the court’s interpretation of U.S. custody in immigration enforcement.
Judge Boasberg has long been criticized by conservatives as an “activist judge” for rulings perceived as obstructing immigration policy. His recent decision to halt deportations to El Salvador prompted a sharp legal rebuke from the administration, which argues that such interventions defy constitutional limits and undermine U.S. sovereignty.
Key Points from the Legal Filing
The legal document, shared on May 2, 2025, by Margot Cleveland of The Federalist Institute, emphasized El Salvador’s sovereign authority. The filing stated:
“El Salvador is a sovereign, independent nation, with its own domestic law and international obligations governing the detention of individuals… The prisons are operated exclusively by the Salvadoran government, which has its own law and procedures.”
The filing strongly rejected the idea that the U.S. retains custody of individuals transferred to El Salvador. It emphasized that any bilateral agreement between the two nations is non-binding in U.S. courts:
“Any bilateral arrangement… is not an enforceable agreement that somehow allows the United States to retain some degree of jurisdiction or control over these individuals.”
Debunking the Custody Argument
Central to the case is the issue of legal custody. Petitioners in the case argue that the U.S. continues to hold custody of the individuals detained in El Salvador’s high-security CECOT prison. But the administration counters that Judge Boasberg himself previously ruled that transferring individuals to El Salvador constituted a removal from U.S. custody.
“Petitioners cannot have it both ways,” the filing asserts. “If the United States retained custody, as Petitioners now insist, then it could not have violated the Court’s order.”
The document continues, using Boasberg’s own interpretations to point out the contradiction:
“The Court found probable cause that the government violated that order by ‘transferring class members out of U.S. custody.’ But if custody never left U.S. hands, there would be no contempt to ‘purge.’”
Conclusion: A Legal and Political Showdown
The Trump administration’s latest court filing marks a significant escalation in the ongoing legal battle over immigration enforcement. By methodically using Judge Boasberg’s own language to discredit his recent rulings, the administration aims to solidify its authority to deport illegal immigrants without interference from what it views as judicial overreach.
Whether the court sides with the administration or maintains its block on deportations, this case could have major implications for the future of U.S. immigration policy — and the limits of judicial power in shaping it.
Leave a Comment