DOJ refuses to answer questions from judge who blocked Alien Enemies Act deportations

The Justice Department on Tuesday refused to answer a number of questions from a federal judge who had demanded more information on deportations that were carried out under a rarely used wartime act.

“The Government maintains that there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate,” the Justice Department said in a court filing responding to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s ruling that it provide him with more information about the deportation flights. 

The filing, however, did include a declaration from an official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement answering some of the questions the judge had posed at a hearing Monday, at which he expressed frustration that the government had appeared to snub his order halting the deportations and its refusal to answer questions about its actions.

The judge had summarized the government’s position as “we don’t care, we’ll do what we want.” 

In a verbal order on Saturday, Boasberg had directed any planes in the air carrying deportees to return to the U.S. after he issued a restraining order blocking deportations stemming from President Donald Trump‘s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected members of a Venezuelan gang. It was later revealed that the planes had arrived in El Salvador and Honduras, raising questions about the timing of the flights and custody handover.

In his declaration, Robert Cerna, an acting field director of enforcement and removal operations for ICE, said that “three planes carrying aliens departed the United States for El Salvador International Airport” after Trump had issued his proclamation. 

“Two of those planes departed U.S. territory and airspace before 7:25 PM EDT,” Cerna said, referencing the time the judge’s written ruling was entered on the court docket. “The third plane departed after that time, but all individuals on that third plane had Title 8 final removal orders and thus were not removed solely on the basis of the Proclamation at issue,” he added. 

The plaintiffs in the case, five Venezuelans the government alleges are members of Tren de Aragua, had noted in a court filing that the judge gave his oral order about 45 minutes before he issued a written one, when the planes were still in the air. Their filing cited public flight tracking information showing the first flight landed in Honduras at 7:36 p.m. and the second in El Salvador at 8:02 p.m.

The third flight left Texas at 7:37 p.m. and landed in Honduras at 9:46 p.m., the plaintiffs said. 

The government’s filing did not include that level of detail. 

In his ruling Monday, the judge said if DOJ “takes the position that it will not provide” more information about details on the flights “under any circumstances, it must support such position, including with classified authorities if necessary,” and could file those arguments under seal, if necessary.

The Justice Department declined to do so, noting it has appealed Boasberg’s earlier ruling. “If, however, the Court nevertheless orders the Government to provide additional details, the Court should do so through an in camera and ex parte declaration, in order to protect sensitive information bearing on foreign relations,” the filing said. 

The government also contended it hadn’t violated Boasberg’s order, claiming that “since the relevant flights left U.S. airspace” their “occupants were ‘removed’ before the order issued.”

In his declaration, Cerna also responded to the judge’s inquiry about how many people subject to Trump’s proclamation are still in the U.S. and how many are in custody. 

Referring to Tren de Aragua, Cerna said “approximately 54 members of TdA are in detention and on the detained docket, approximately 172 are on the non-detained docket, and approximately 32 are in criminal custody with active detainers against them. Should they be transferred to ICE custody, they will likely be placed in removal proceedings.” 

The administration has repeatedly pushed back on Boasberg since his ruling on Saturday.  

Overnight, the Justice Department filed a motion asking the judge to reverse his decision blocking the use of 18th century act to deport the alleged gang members. 

The administration argued the judge’s temporary restraining order was “overbroad and unconstitutional,” saying his orders were “an affront to the President’s broad constitutional and statutory authority to protect the United States from dangerous aliens who pose grave threats to the American people.”

The motion also contends that the judge “lacks jurisdiction because the presidential actions they challenge are not subject to judicial review,” and that there “is similarly no jurisdiction for the Court to order the government to produce additional information about its missions.”

The administration also sent a letter to a federal appeals court on Monday, urging it to remove Boasberg from the case, while Trump took to his social media platform Tuesday morning calling for the judge to be impeached. The president referred to the Obama appointee as a “radical left lunatic,” and “a troublemaker and agitator.”

In a statement later Tuesday, John Roberts, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

This article originally appeared on NBCNews.com. Read more from NBC News: