Trump escalates conflict with judges to new heights

Trump escalates conflict with judges to new heights

cnn- Richter James Boasberg decided on Wednesday that the Trump-Administration " Disregard ”of his command for suspension of the deportation flights. This was done as part of a legal dispute over the legality of the deportations. He is the first judge to find that "is likely to be given" to concern civil servants of administration for disregard for criminal law.

The legal arguments are expanded

The legal dispute over whether Bundes official Boasberg has disregarded commands unfolds in a larger pattern of contempt and stubbornness to administration towards the judges that have restricted President Donald Trump's agenda. The sound is set by Trump himself.

attacks on judges and courts

civil servants of the Trump administration started personal attacks against Boasberg and other judges on social media and public appearances. Government lawyers have often expressed ignorance on basic questions about the legal problem. In view of judgments that Trump's politics exposed, the administration has shown remarkable aversion to judicial authority, as can be seen from the instructions that it gave the authorities to comply with judicial orders.

"It is breathtaking in his audacity and the lack of any decency rules," said retired judge John Jones III, a judge at the Federal Supreme Court in Pennsylvania. "I have never seen anything like this from the judicial authority and also from any lawyer who practices before a federal court."

a case of incorrect deportation

The carefree attitude of the administration is the focus of the case, especially at the incorrect deportation of a migrant in Maryland to a high -security prison in El Salvador. This case has gained intensity after the Supreme Court mostly confirmed a command of the district judge last week, who asked the Trump administration to "enable" the return of the migrant to the United States.

During a hearing on Tuesday before the US district judge Paula Xinis, the Doj lawyer Drew Ensign tried to question the interpretation of the instructions of the Supreme Court, and indicated that the administration would appeal to any command that "enable" the term.

The reaction of the Trump administration

"The Supreme Court spoke. I stick to the Supreme Court as close as possible. My command is clear and direct. In my opinion, there is nothing that could be contested," replied Xinis. The authority has now appealed against its command of April 11, which it had issued one day after the decision of the Supreme Court.

In this and other legal disputes, leading Trump officials have taken the view that, no matter what the lower courts decide, they have the Supreme Court on their side.

clashes with judges

During the first presidency of Trump, judges were often the aim of his dreaded tirades on social media, which led to security concerns regarding the security of the judges. The leading officials of his second administration also often take judges to the target.

The deputy chief of staff of the White House, Stephen Miller, described Xinis as "Marxistin", who "now thinks she was president of El Salvador". Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed to protect Boasberg attempts to "protect our country over American citizens". Trump strengthened the idea that Boasberg should be impeached.

reaction and communication of the judicial authority

The condescending rhetoric has also found its way into the more formal statements of the administration. When the Ministry of Justice had to communicate that a judge had to interact a Trump Ordinance that attacks the ability of a law firm to interact with the federal government, it was said in a letter written by Bondi that "a non-elected court again intervened in the freedom of choice and expression of the executive".

The US immigration authority has revised a message on its website, which announced that a Trump immigration policy was suspended by a court in California. The original version of the message reflected the decision of the court and its effects on politics in a clear language. A few days later, however, the message was reorganized and exposed several swipes against the judge's judgment.

View of the Supreme Court

The calls from the right side, Boasberg and other judges who have decided against Trump have reached a highlight, whereupon the chairman John Roberts made a remarkable explanation - without naming a specific judge - and explained that the normal legal process, and not the office investigation procedure, was "appropriate response to arguments about a judicial decision".

This explanation has contributed little to calm the mood. Even if the Supreme Court decides against the administration, the majority did not take the opportunity to address directly how administration behaved in lower instances. According to Bagenstos, it seems as if the highest court has avoided provoking conflicts.

"If you are the Trump administration, it could be a good bet that you can continue to be disrespectful towards these judges of the lower dishes and that nothing negative for your legal position as a result will happen," remarked Bagenstos.

Legal observers find that this does not improve the situation, since the Supreme Court has used vaguely and possibly unclear language in the short emergency decisions that instruct the lower dishes to "clarify" their orders for the government.

"It seems to me that it gets worse, the tensions rise," said Jones, the former judge. Roberts and the other judges will "have to begin to protect the judges of the lower courts".