Cnn
–
Immigration fights for the defense of the federal government’s power cuts by President Donald Trump, the Ministry of Justice responded to more than a hundred emergency proceedings in the first hundred days of the presidency with surprising consistency.
The approach: defend everything Trump wants. And when it does not work, blurring the waters.
Sometimes it includes skip or accelerate The established order as long as cases can be interrupted in federal civil affairs, the Ministry of Justice pushing certain disputes during the trial level of the trial to the Supreme Court or other courses of appeal as soon as it can.
At other times, it includes an approach filled with “sophism” or a very selective Reading a court order, such as Judge Paula Xinis of the Maryland Federal Court recently wrote it in an immigration case.
In the Xinis case, with regard to the immigrant, mistakenly expelled Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Supreme Court told the administration that Xinis at the trial could order the United States to “facilitate” its return. Xinis said the way the Ministry of Justice interpreted this order – By doing nothing except by declaring that they would be willing to send an aircraft to Latin America to recover it – “redefine” facilitate “the opposite to the law and the logic”.
“The administration seems to be motivated by a legal theory but by a theory of power”, a former official of the Ministry of Justice of Democratic Administrations said to CNN.
The Supreme Court said that the Trump administration had to give an opinion to the detainees who are sent to Salvador under the Act respecting extraterrestrial enemies so that they can challenge their deportations. But the courts are now wondering if the opinion of the administration is enough.
The ACLU, representing the detainees, allegedly alleged that they could not even obtain a 24 -hour dismissal notice. The group alsohad the concern that opinions are given in English rather than in detainees’ First language, Spanish, although a lawyer for the Ministry of Justice denied this on Friday in court.
A refrain to the court of administrative lawyers since Trump took up his duties was to assert that the power of the president is almost impeccable – a theory which should be tested by Trump at the Supreme Court.
Sometimes this means that the administration has argued – in public and in court – that Trump can draw more power than the judges because he was elected president. This argument of a voter mandate recently presented itself this week during the judicial arguments on the aggressive immigration program of Trump.
“The president was elected on this exact program, and he remains his most popular policy, despite the attempts at the media to turn him differently,” said the prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice Tiberi Davis said a federal judge in New York.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein replied: “We are not talking about popularity. I understand the desire to withdraw, but there is also a legal procedure. ”
This argument also appeared while lawyers of the Ministry of Justice defended the efforts of data research and liaison to the financing of the adviser to Trump, Elon Musk and the Ministry of Effectiveness of the Government, attempts to climb agencies, in particular the USAID and the financial protection office of consumers and the dismissal of federal appointments and career officials.
He also appeared as the Ministry of Justice defended a Trump decree to target a law firm who represented his political opponent. During a hearing, a senior MJ told the judge that the courts could not guess the decisions taken by the President, in the name of national security, to revoke lawyer’s security authorizations or take other measures that undermine their capacity for their work.
In response to an investigation into the legal strategy, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: “This Ministry of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the agenda of President Trump and the authority of Article II before the courts.”
Ty COBB, who represented Trump during his first mandate in special advice surveys, said “Erin Burnet Outfront” of CNN that the Department of Justice was carried out in the immigration case before Xinis was filled with “obscure and bad faith”.
He added that the more daring lawyers of the Ministry of Justice are becoming difficult to defend, they can lose credibility before the courts.
“This is the first judge who has so far in Trump’s world affairs has finally abandoned the presumption of regularity which normally focuses on representations of government lawyers,” COBB said on Tuesday. “She doesn’t believe them. She doesn’t trust them.”
In some cases, the actions of this administration would not have been approved by legal checks within the executive power, according to several former managers.
A former justice official, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, stressed how the administration ordered restrictions on law firms for political reasons, which, according to several judges, are unconstitutional.
These unprecedented executive orders against companies like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and Wilmerhale would have been approved by lawyers from the office of the White House Advisor or the Legal Council of the Ministry of Justice under any previous administration of one or the other.
An executive decree signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1962 Dictates how the Ministry of Justice Must examine the presidential proposals to erase them legally. Historically, the administrations use the office of legal advisers of the Ministry of Justice to forge legal opinions on policies and executive measures, and the office of the White House Council also plays a role in the exam if and how the prerogatives of the president can be made.
“This balance is really out of control here,” a head of the Biden era told CNN.
The current administration “asks a different question” of the previous ones internally in his approach to the law, said the former employee of several administrations. “This is not the case, can we do this, but will someone stop us?”
Federal judge of appeal this month, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was on the bench in Richmond, Virginia, from the Reagan administration, has also sounded this alarm to a recent opinion. Wilkinson wrote on the will of the will of President Dwight Eisenhower to put aside his opinions when the Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of schools in 1955.
“Now, the branches are too close to grinding irrevocably against each other in a conflict that promises to decrease both. It is a losing proposition all around,” wrote Wilkinson. “The executive will lose a lot from a perception of the public of its anarchy and all its contagions which result from it … We still hang on to the hope that it is not naive to believe our good brothers in the executive branch perceived the rule of law as vital for American ethics.”
In the event that Perkins Coie continues on Trump’s reprisals, a lawyer from the Ministry of Justice underlined another approach on Wednesday in some cases, where lawyers of the administration are not prepared and cannot or cannot give answers to factual questions.
This has both injured and helped the administration at certain times, as in DOGE confidentiality case And Immigrant deportation battles.
Ty Cobb: Trump “danced on the grave” of the independence of the Ministry of Justice
On Wednesday, lawyer for the Ministry of Justice, Richard Lawson, fought for several minutes with the federal judge Beryl Howell to find out if there are even written agreements between the administration and certain law firms to provide free legal work in accordance with the priorities of Trump, and he could not answer if Perkins Coie would have been spared Based on a decree if he had agreed to promise Pro Bono work.
“I can’t talk about it,” Lawson told the judge on several occasions. “I was not informed of questions outside of Perkins Coie … I just don’t have this information.”
Likewise, lawyers from the Ministry of Justice have Fight to provide answers When the judges asked questions at close range on whom at Doge was in charge and the role of musk.
And in immigration cases, administration lawyers have tripped rather than giving answers to which was involved in the implementation of controversial immigrants’ moving policies, and in one case, taking several days to bring together official declarations of the firm according to which certain flight data accessible to the public and other details were so-called “state secrets”.
This story has been updated with additional developments.