The Trump administration deported Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador, seemingly defying a federal judge’s order for their return. El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele celebrated the event, mocking judicial authority. Legal experts question the actions’ legality, suggesting possible contempt of court and alternative legal justifications by the administration.
The Trump administration has notably escalated tensions with the judicial branch by transporting 238 Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador, disregarding a federal judge’s order for their return to the United States. The El Salvadoran President, Nayib Bukele, proudly announced the arrival of the detainees at a “Terrorism Confinement Center,” where they are to be held for at least one year. Bukele mockingly remarked, “Oopsie … Too late,” a statement that was further circulated by White House communications director Steven Cheung.
In an odd display of gratitude, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on social media, thanking Mr. Bukele for his detailed account of the migrants’ situation, raising questions about the legality of the deportations. Law professor David Super from Georgetown University remarked, “This sure looks like contempt of court to me. You can turn around a plane if you want to.”
The specific timing of the planes’ arrival remains somewhat ambiguous. The Trump administration indicated in a filing that the State and Homeland Security Departments were made aware of the judge’s ruling shortly after its electronic publication at 7:26 p.m. on Saturday. This led to a suggestion that the administration may have relied on an alternate legal authority for the deportation of the Venezuelans while pursuing an appeal of the court order.
The events surrounding the deportation of Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador present a significant challenge to judicial authority. With President Bukele’s flagrant mockery of the court order and the administration’s potential justification for such actions, the situation unfolds as one of legal and constitutional contention. Observers are left questioning the implications of these actions on the balance of powers within the government.
Original Source: www.nytimes.com
