Trump escalates the highest conflict with judges

Trump escalates the highest conflict with judges

cnn reports reported judge boasberg on Wednesday decided that the Trump administration "deliberate disregard" of his order in March showed the deportation fees to stop due to legal disputes about the legality of these measures. Boasberg is the first judge to "see a sufficient reason" to bring the government official to a court for criminal disregard.

Legal dispute over the Trump administration

The legal struggle about whether federal civil servants over Boasberg's instructions unfolds in the greater context of an administration, the dishes treated mockingly and refused to respect the decisions that President Donald Trump's agenda restricted. Trump himself exemplified the disrespect against the judges who question Trump's politics.

attacks on judges and their decisions

The Trump administration officers started personal attacks against Boasberg and other judges on social media and public appearances. Government lawyers have often faked ignorance in fundamental questions about legal disputes. In view of the decisions that Trump's guidelines suspended, the government has shown a remarkable contempt for judicial authority by granting the authorities instructions for compliance with these commands.

short advertising

"It is breathtaking in his audacity and lack of decency," said retired judge John Jones III, a judge I appointed by George W. Bush, who served at a federal court in Pennsylvania. "It is unique what I saw from the Ministry of Justice, and indeed from every lawyer who practices before a federal court."

unsuccessful deportations and high court resolutions

The unadorned attitude of the administration occurred particularly clearly in the case of incorrect deportation of a migrant in Maryland, which was brought to El Salvador. These procedures achieved a new level of intensity after the Supreme Court largely maintained an order from the district judge last week, which obliged the Trump administration to "enable" the return of the migrant to the USA.

At a hearing on Tuesday in front of US district judge Paula Xinis, Herschaffs representative Drew Ensign tried to question the interpretation of the instructions of the Supreme Court and indicated that the administration against any far-tested definition of the term that was used in the last decision of the Supreme Court would make an appeal.

Doubts about the integrity of the administration

"The Supreme Court spoke. I stick to the orders of the Supreme Court as closely as possible. My decision is clear and direct. In my opinion there is nothing that could be called," countered Xinis. Since then, the ministry has appealed against its order of April 11, which was issued one day after the opinion of the Supreme Court and proves the administration to take steps to return the migrant and to provide information about these steps.

In this case and in their public statements on the various legal disputes, high-ranking Trump officials have taken over the idea that, no matter what the lower dishes say, they have the Supreme Court on their side.

political attacks and public rhetoric

For example, the deputy chief of staff of the White House, Stephen Miller, wrote the Supreme Court as 9-0 in his own cause when it came to whether a court could instruct the government to take steps back to bring Abordo Garcia back. However, the non -signed majority opinion gave the reason for ambiguous interpretations, and three liberal judges clarified in separate statements that they agreed with the judge's guideline that the government had to take steps to bring back the migrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia

"What the administration tries is to separate the highest court from the rest of the judiciary and to say: 'We listen to the Supreme Court, but we don't have to deal with the lower dishes'," continues Jones.

Respect for the judiciary in danger

During Trump's first term in office, judges were not foreign to his notorious attacks on social media, which caused security concerns for the judges. The high -ranking officials of his second term also often aim at the judges with cheerfulness.

Stephen Miller described Xinis as "Marxistin", who "now thinks she was president of El Salvador". Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed to protect Boasberg to protect terrorists who "attacked our country" over American citizens. Trump confirmed the idea that Boasberg earns office.

The mockery rhetoric has also been reflected in the more formal explanations of the administration.

When the Ministry of Justice had to tell the authorities that a judge had encouraged a Trump's executive order to communicate the ability of a law firm to communicate with the federal government, said a communication written by Bondi that "a non -elected district court once again intervened in political decision -making processes and freedom of expression of the executive."

A look at the Supreme Court

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services have revised a message on their website from the legal challenges of the political decision, which announced that a Trump's immigration policy was suspended by a court in California. The original notification was simply the judicial decision and its effects. But a few days later, the message was rewritten to make several attacks on the judge's decision.

The administration is determined to restore the rule of law regarding the Temporary Protected Status (TPS), but will undo historical decisions with the parallelism mentioned. "Nevertheless, Judge Edward Chen, a federal judge in San Francisco, ordered on March 31, 2025 that the TPS department had to continue for Venezolans."

FAZIT: The challenges of the Trump administration

Samuel Bagenstos, who served two different federal authorities as General Counsel during the bid administration and also worked in leading positions in the Ministry of Justice, noticed that the tone of the administration was nothing that he could think of as a lawyer in over 30 years. "We brought very strong arguments before the dishes that these decisions were wrong," said Bagenstos. "But when we guided our customers to follow the decisions, we tried to take into account that the courts had the right to command us to do what they ordered."

Details on the message source edition.cnn.com

SOURCE: die-nachrichten.at