update - Judge Boasberg ponders contempt proceedings vs Trump administration

[mandrill]

Judge orders DOGE to turn over secret records and justify mass layoffs

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has been given three weeks to answer questions in writing about how it decided to downsize federal agencies, suspend contracts and carry out mass firings.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan turned the tables on DOGE on Wednesday, three weeks after Musk's 'what did you do last week' email to staffers sparked mass protests.
The cost-cutting endeavor has prompted several lawsuits as DOGE seeks to slash bloated bureaucracies and eliminate wasteful government spending.

Chutkan gave Musk three weeks to comply with a discovery order that requires his team to answer questions about the inner workings of the department and turn over relevant documents.
The decision came after 14 Democratic state attorneys general teamed up to jointly sue Musk and DOGE, expressing concerns that he is wielding an unconstitutional amount of power.
It is the second blow DOGE has suffered this week after a separate judge ruled that the department was not immune to scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.
Now, Musk's decisions and execution will be placed under the spotlight for the first time as he hands over departmental records and documents.
It is also a similar request to one Musk himself made of all federal employees when he ordered they send him five bullet points explaining what tasks they completed at work.

Elon Musk 's Department of Government Efficiency has been given three weeks to answer questions in writing about how it decided to downsize federal agencies, suspend contracts and carry out mass firings

Among the questions asked of Musk and DOGE in discovery are complete copies of 'DOGE’s Playbook for Eliminating DEI' and 'any other planning and implementation documents similar in form or function'

Failure to reply to the email was grounds for termination.
Among the questions asked of Musk and DOGE in discovery are complete copies of 'DOGE’s Playbook for Eliminating DEI' and 'any other planning and implementation documents similar in form or function.'
The discovery order asks DOGE to 'produce all documents containing lists, charts, or summaries that DOGE personnel or Musk have created, compiled, or edited reflecting the planned or completed cancellation of federal contracts, grants, or other legal agreements.'
'Produce all interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding, memoranda of action, or other similar documents,' the discovery order states.
The attorneys general are also seeking information for 'all individuals with authority to hire or terminate employment of DOGE personnel since January 20, 2025.'
Chutkan, an Obama appointed judge, specified that her order does not apply to Trump, who will not have to respond to any written questions or demands.
Some estimates say DOGE has had a hand in tens of thousands of job losses across the bloated federal bureaucracy.

The information Musk has been ordered to hand over will help Chutkan as she seeks to determine whether to block DOGE's activities altogether.

On Wednesday, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan turned the tables on DOGE three weeks after Musk's 'what did you do last week' email to staffers sparked mass protests

The cost-cutting endeavour has prompted several lawsuits as DOGE seeks to slash bloated bureaucracies and eliminate wasteful government spending
It's understood the defendants are hoping to learn new details about 'the parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority.'
Discovery will also likely help to identify DOGE officials which Musk has embedded across the nation.
The Trump administration have made efforts to shield DOGE from public scrutiny, both through the discovery process and the recent FOIA court battle.
DOGE has been operating under the wider umbrella of the Executive Office of the President, which is primarily exempt from the FOIA. But there are some exceptions in which it can become subject to transparency laws.
But Chutkan argued that the requests about Musk's involvement in high-level decisions is narrow enough to not be a burden to the executive branch.
And on Monday, District Judge Christopher Cooper determined DOGE's 'operations thus far have been marked by unusual secrecy' and remarked about the 'outsized influence on federal government' Musk's team wields.

It is a similar request to one Musk himself made of all federal employees when he ordered they send him five bullet points explaining what tasks they completed at work
Trump lists 'appalling waste' he says DOGE has identified

While the government maintains Musk is merely an adviser to the president, Monday's ruling noted: 'Mr. Musk claimed credit for placing large numbers of USAID employees on administrative leave in February, revelling that ''We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper''' in a post on X on February 3.
In all, around 4,154 USAID staff were placed on leave in the days prior to and following that X post.
Musk has also been linked to the voluntary redundancy package the Trump administration offered federal staff, which a reported 75,000 have accepted.
In January, almost the entire workforce of federal employees received a deferred resignation offer that came with eight months of pay in an initial DOGE effort to reduce spending.

 

[mandrill]

Ruling from the bench, Judge William J. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California went further than he had previously, finding that the Trump administration’s firing of probationary workers had essentially been done unlawfully and by fiat through the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources arm.

He directed the Treasury and the Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy and Interior Departments to comply with his order and offer to reinstate any employees who were improperly terminated. His order stemmed from a lawsuit brought by employee unions who challenged the legality of the mass firings.

Judge Alsup concluded that the government’s actions were a “gimmick” designed to expeditiously carry out mass firings.

He said it was clear that federal agencies had followed directives from the Office of Personnel Management to use a loophole allowing them to fire probationary workers en masse based on poor performance, regardless of their actual conduct on the job.

“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said.

“It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements,” he added.

Before handing down the ruling, Judge Alsup was careful to clarify with lawyers representing the unions that “reduction in force” orders now being issued at several agencies were still legal and could go forward.

He said his finding that the earlier wave, recommended by the Office of Personnel and Management, was an overreach of executive authority, but that his order did not stand in the way of the government executing layoffs in accordance with the rules.

“If it’s done right, there can be a reduction in force within an agency, that has to be true,” Judge Alsup said.

“Congress itself has said you can have an agency can do a reduction in force, if it’s done correctly under the law,” he added, drawing an acknowledgment by a lawyer representing the unions.

Judge Alsup had originally planned to have Trump administration officials appear to testify about the process through which the layoffs were planned, but the government made clear Wednesday that Charles Ezell, the acting head of Office of Personnel Management, would not appear.

The judge's decision on Thursday, which also extends a restraining order last month blocking the Office of Personnel Management from orchestrating further mass firings, offered a temporary reprieve for federal workers unions who have resisted the Trump administration’s initiatives.

Danielle Leonard, a lawyer representing the unions, noted again during the hearing that the directives had had a devastating effect on agencies, by culling not only younger workers and recent graduates, but even career civil servants who had recently been promoted and were in a probationary period in their more senior positions.

“This action by O.P.M. made Swiss cheese of the federal agencies at every level,” she said.

Trump Administration Live Updates: Judge Orders Thousands of Federal Workers Reinstated

www.nytimes.com

 

[mandrill]

'I'm getting mad': Judge reams Trump lawyers and threatens mass rehiring over 'sham' docs

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup blasted attorneys for the Trump administration after he said he suspected they were lying and giving him "sham" documents.

At a hearing on Thursday, Alsup became angry after acting Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Charles Ezell refused an order to testify on the Trump administration's mass firings. The case was brought in February by the American Federation of Government Employees.


"You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You're afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth," the judge told government lawyers, according to Slate's Mark Joseph Stern.


"I tend to doubt that you're telling me the truth whenever we hear all the evidence eventually. Why can't you bring your people in to be cross-examined or deposed at their convenience?" he continued. "I said two hours for Mr. Ezell. A deposition at his convenience. And you withdrew his declaration rather than do that? Come on. That's a sham. It upsets me, I want you to know that."

"I've been practicing in this court for over 50 years and I know how we get at the truth. And you're not helping me get at the truth. You're giving me press releases, sham documents. I'm getting mad."


According to Politico's Kyle Cheney, the judge suggested that he could order "mass rehiring."

“It is sad, a sad day, when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie," the judge reportedly said Thursday.

Update: Alsup ordered probationary employees from the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury to be reinstated.

 

[TauCeti]

Those two schoolyard bullies need their asses kicked! Who the fuck do those clowns think they are, annointed gods?.

 

[mandrill]

Doug Mills/The New York Times

A federal judge in Washington has ordered Elon Musk and operatives involved with his Department of Government Efficiency to hand over documents and answer questions about its role in directing mass firings and dismantling government programs.

The judge, Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said on Wednesday that the plaintiffs in the case — a coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general challenging Mr. Musk’s authority — had demonstrated a clear need to shed light on the inner workings of Mr. Musk’s team. It was the first time a judge has ordered Mr. Musk’s division be subject to discovery.

In the weeks after Mr. Musk’s team fanned out across federal agencies demanding access to federal offices and databases, lawyers seeking to stop the group’s advances have been forced to rely on news reports and anecdotal evidence about what, exactly, Mr. Musk’s team has been doing.

In many cases, federal judges have grown frustrated by the inability of the government’s own lawyers to answer straightforward questions about what data Mr. Musk’s associates have viewed, or to what extent the group had directly spearheaded recent downsizing efforts. In filings in another case, the government has also downplayed Mr. Musk’s role, claiming he was not officially the group’s leader.

The group of states had asked Judge Chutkan to grant the request to let them probe Mr.
Musk’s team for information in order to confirm details about its operations and its future plans, and to “illustrate the nature and scope of the unconstitutional and unlawful authority” they said Mr. Musk has so far exercised.

Judge Chutkan agreed, writing in an opinion that “the requests seek to identify DOGE personnel and the parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority — a question central to Plaintiffs’ claims.”

The order on Wednesday was more limited than the states’ slightly more ambitious request, which included a demand for two members of Mr. Musk’s team to sit for depositions — an ask Judge Chutkan denied. But the order still requires Mr. Musk and his office to provide a broad array of information about its engagement with federal agencies, employees, contracts, grants and databases within three weeks.

Judges in other cases have responded similarly to demands for more clarity about Mr. Musk’s team, which has largely been shrouded in secrecy.

On Thursday, a judge in California required an associate of Mr. Musk’s who was detailed to the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources arm, to be deposed about any role he had in helping steer the mass firings of federal workers.

And on Monday, a judge in Washington ruled that Mr. Musk’s office was subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and ordered it to rapidly produce records that a public ethics group had sued to obtain.

Zach MontagueReporting from Washington

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Wiki discussion of the Mahmoud Khalil case. The Islamic campus protestor ordered deported for pro Islamic statements re Palestine.

Detention of Mahmoud Khalil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Khalil has not been charged with a crime,[51] is not alleged to have engaged in any activity legally prohibited to U.S. residents,[52] and authorities have not alleged he provided material support to a proscribed organization.[35] Removal procedures were initiated under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits deportation of lawful residents if the Secretary of State believes that their presence presents a risk of "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences".[53] Khalil's attorneys have called this an "obscure" and "rarely used" section of the act.[52] Judge Maryann Trump Barry previously found this section unconstitutional in Massieu v. Reno, though that ruling was reversed by a court of appeals for reasons unrelated to the constitutional issues, which the court of appeals did not address.[54][55]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil#cite_note-58

Greer filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Southern District of New York on March 9, and the next day Judge Jesse Furman ruled that Khalil could not be removed from the U.S. while the court assessed the case.[57] At a March 12 hearing, the government argued for a change of venue to either New Jersey or Louisiana, where Khalil had been held in detention.[58] His lawyers asked that he be returned to New York. Furman ordered that Khalil be allowed two attorney-client-privileged phone calls, and that both the government and Khalil's lawyers submit plans on March 14 for further arguments.[59] Khalil has separately been scheduled for a hearing before a Louisiana immigration judge on March 27.[53]

On March 13, attorneys for Khalil filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, adding Trump, Rubio and others as respondents.[60] In addition to Amy Greer, Khalil's legal representation includes attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union,[60] Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR),[61] and the Center for Constitutional Rights.[62] CLEAR is a legal aid group at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law.[61][63]


Government statements

Government officials have informally accused Khalil of leading "activities aligned with Hamas"; the government has not publicly provided any evidence of this claim.[64][65] Khalil denies the accusation and his attorneys called it "false and preposterous".[35][66] White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also alleged Khalil distributed flyers with a Hamas logo;[67] as of mid-March, neither Leavitt nor ICE publicly provided proof of the existence of such flyers, though Leavitt claimed the flyers were being stored on or inside her desk.[67][68] The Trump administration defended its action, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing plans to revoke more people's visas or green cards.[69]

Department of Homeland Security deputy secretary Troy Edgar defended the detention. When asked to explain what conduct merited Khalil's removal from the U.S., and specifically how Khalil had supported Hamas, Edgar said, "I think if he would have declared he's a terrorist, we would have never let him in." Throughout the interview, Edgar incorrectly called Khalil a visa holder, despite being corrected that Khalil is a legal permanent resident. [70][71]


Legal analysis

According to Adam Cox, a professor and immigration expert at New York University, a legal permanent resident can be deported for having been convicted of certain criminal offenses, and immigration laws in Congress can make a person deportable for some conduct that is not criminal. A non-citizen can also be deported if the State Department has reasonable grounds to believe that their presence or activities in the country would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences.[72]

Writing about the Khalil case, Just Security notes that in Bridges v. Wixon (1945), the Supreme Court protected an Australian union organizer from being deported for his pro-labor speech. The court ruled that the First Amendment was applicable to noncitizens. In the decades since, the Supreme Court allowed deportations of noncitizens involved in communist groups in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, though it narrowly read First Amendment protections instead of rejecting their applicability.[73] Citing the same cases, Nadine Strossen states that constitutional issues are complex and not easily resolvable in cases like Khalil's.[74]


Related lawsuit

On March 13, the New York chapter of the Council on American–Islamic Relations said it had sued Columbia on behalf of Khalil and several other students and also sued the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce on grounds related to Columbia's compliance with the committee's demand that it give the committee student records.[75][76][77]

 

[mandrill]

 

[squeezer]

My question is if the admin, Trumputin and mush are abiding by any of these orders? I suspect the POS that they are, are not, but that's just my hunch.

 

[mandrill]

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mandrill]

My question is if the admin, Trumputin and mush are abiding by any of these orders? I suspect the POS that they are, are not, but that's just my hunch.

I suspect that they are not.

The current rightie troll-speak on Twitter is that "a mere district judge cannot curb the President of the USA". This is of course bullshit, but the dum-dums and fascists cheer it on.

 

[mandrill]

 

[Valcazar]

All these rulings, but what can they do if Trumputin doesn't obey the rulings??

That's the big question.
There is already evidence Trump/Musk have been just ignoring court orders.

 

[Valcazar]

Find Trump in contempt of court and issue a ruling preventing the administration from launching prosecuting or defending any case until the contempt is purged.

And then see if they ignore that as well.

 

[Valcazar]

My question is if the admin, Trumputin and mush are abiding by any of these orders? I suspect the POS that they are, are not, but that's just my hunch.

We don't know.
Some for sure yes, some for sure no.
There have been a lot, though, and I don't know of someone who has been tracking all of them.

 

[mandrill]

And then see if they ignore that as well.

But if the chief judge says:

"Motherfucker, we won't allow you to defend this Billion $$$$$ lawsuit from XYZ Corp because you are flagrantly in contempt of other past rulings of this court", Trump is completely fucked.

Judges will do shit like that to get your attention.

 

[Frankfooter]

Wiki discussion of the Mahmoud Khalil case. The Islamic campus protestor ordered deported for pro Islamic statements re Palestine.

Detention of Mahmoud Khalil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Khalil has not been charged with a crime,[51] is not alleged to have engaged in any activity legally prohibited to U.S. residents,[52] and authorities have not alleged he provided material support to a proscribed organization.[35] Removal procedures were initiated under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits deportation of lawful residents if the Secretary of State believes that their presence presents a risk of "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences".[53] Khalil's attorneys have called this an "obscure" and "rarely used" section of the act.[52] Judge Maryann Trump Barry previously found this section unconstitutional in Massieu v. Reno, though that ruling was reversed by a court of appeals for reasons unrelated to the constitutional issues, which the court of appeals did not address.[54][55]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil#cite_note-58

Greer filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Southern District of New York on March 9, and the next day Judge Jesse Furman ruled that Khalil could not be removed from the U.S. while the court assessed the case.[57] At a March 12 hearing, the government argued for a change of venue to either New Jersey or Louisiana, where Khalil had been held in detention.[58] His lawyers asked that he be returned to New York. Furman ordered that Khalil be allowed two attorney-client-privileged phone calls, and that both the government and Khalil's lawyers submit plans on March 14 for further arguments.[59] Khalil has separately been scheduled for a hearing before a Louisiana immigration judge on March 27.[53]

On March 13, attorneys for Khalil filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, adding Trump, Rubio and others as respondents.[60] In addition to Amy Greer, Khalil's legal representation includes attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union,[60] Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR),[61] and the Center for Constitutional Rights.[62] CLEAR is a legal aid group at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law.[61][63]


Government statements

Government officials have informally accused Khalil of leading "activities aligned with Hamas"; the government has not publicly provided any evidence of this claim.[64][65] Khalil denies the accusation and his attorneys called it "false and preposterous".[35][66] White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also alleged Khalil distributed flyers with a Hamas logo;[67] as of mid-March, neither Leavitt nor ICE publicly provided proof of the existence of such flyers, though Leavitt claimed the flyers were being stored on or inside her desk.[67][68] The Trump administration defended its action, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing plans to revoke more people's visas or green cards.[69]

Department of Homeland Security deputy secretary Troy Edgar defended the detention. When asked to explain what conduct merited Khalil's removal from the U.S., and specifically how Khalil had supported Hamas, Edgar said, "I think if he would have declared he's a terrorist, we would have never let him in." Throughout the interview, Edgar incorrectly called Khalil a visa holder, despite being corrected that Khalil is a legal permanent resident. [70][71]


Legal analysis

According to Adam Cox, a professor and immigration expert at New York University, a legal permanent resident can be deported for having been convicted of certain criminal offenses, and immigration laws in Congress can make a person deportable for some conduct that is not criminal. A non-citizen can also be deported if the State Department has reasonable grounds to believe that their presence or activities in the country would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences.[72]

Writing about the Khalil case, Just Security notes that in Bridges v. Wixon (1945), the Supreme Court protected an Australian union organizer from being deported for his pro-labor speech. The court ruled that the First Amendment was applicable to noncitizens. In the decades since, the Supreme Court allowed deportations of noncitizens involved in communist groups in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, though it narrowly read First Amendment protections instead of rejecting their applicability.[73] Citing the same cases, Nadine Strossen states that constitutional issues are complex and not easily resolvable in cases like Khalil's.[74]


Related lawsuit

On March 13, the New York chapter of the Council on American–Islamic Relations said it had sued Columbia on behalf of Khalil and several other students and also sued the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce on grounds related to Columbia's compliance with the committee's demand that it give the committee student records.[75][76][77]

He broke no laws and protested genocide in a foreign country.
For that the US will jail him and deport him.

trump will cut funding to Columbia and the 47% of students who are international are now warned not to come to the school.
All for Israel.

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/15/trump-deportation-lawsuit-00232121

President Donald Trump invoked rarely used war powers in a bid to deport foreign nationals that the federal government deems to be members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

Trump’s proclamation — which was released by the White House Saturday afternoon but signed on Friday — relies on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which is meant to quickly remove foreigners during wartime or invasion, and comes hours after a preemptive order from a federal judge barred five Venezuelan nationals from being deported immediately.



It’s the latest sweeping executive action from the White House designed to speed up Trump’s efforts to deport millions of undocumented immigrants from the country.


“I find and declare that TdA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States,” Trump wrote in his declaration.
The order landed amid a scramble in multiple federal courts by foreign nationals who sued to block imminent deportations they were told were being initiated pursuant to Trump’s anticipated order.
The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to sign a letter within 60 days declaring this the policy of the U.S., and for the letter to be sent to every judge, including the justices on the Supreme Court, as well as the governor of every state.
Every immigrant that meets the description outlined in the order “are subject to immediate apprehension, detention, and removal.” It is not clear how many members of Tren de Aragua are currently in the United States — or how the government will make such designations.
Trump repeatedly suggested during his campaign he may turn to the Alien Enemies Act to aid his mass deportation plans, a promise he reiterated on Inauguration Day. The president said on Jan. 20 that he would use the wartime law to “direct our government to use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement to eliminate the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks bringing devastating crime to U.S. soil, including our cities and inner cities.”

He also moved last month to designate eight Latin American cartels, including Tren de Aragua, as foreign terrorist organizations.
“We’ll be reading a lot of stories tomorrow about what we’ve done with them,” Trump said at the Justice Department on Friday, speaking about Tren De Aragua. “You’ll be very impressed, and you feel a lot safer, because they are a vicious group.”
Hours before the president’s proclamation was published online, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued the urgent ruling blocking the deportations. He cited “exigent circumstances,” issuing his order just hours after a lawsuit was filed on behalf of five Venezuelan men who say they have been cued up for deportation within hours or days as a result of Trump’s expected decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act.
Boasberg, the chief judge for the federal district court in Washington, D.C., also called for a hearing Saturday afternoon on the lawsuit’s effort to ensure anyone else targeted by Trump’s expected invocation is protected from immediate deportation.
The lawsuit, filed by Democracy Forward and the ACLU, emphasizes that the Alien Enemies Act has only been invoked during wartime — the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. The order by Boasberg was issued with unusual urgency, before the Trump administration had a chance to respond.
But the administration quickly filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking Saturday afternoon for an emergency stay of Boasberg’s ruling. In their motion, the administration said that the argument over the use of the Alien Enemies Act was hypothetical — which is no longer the case — and “fundamentally a political question to be resolved by the President.”
Attorneys for the five Venezuelans say the order could subject “countless Venezuelans” to “imminent risk of deportation without any hearing or meaningful review.” The five men who filed the initial lawsuit say they were informed by immigration authorities to expect deportation as soon as Saturday night.
Boasberg’s Saturday order prevents any of the five plaintiffs from being deported for 14 days.


The centuries-old law allows the government to arrest, detain and deport undocumented migrants over the age of 14 who come from countries threatening an “invasion or predatory incursion” of the United States.

Those targeted under the wartime law would be swiftly deported and would not be allowed to have an asylum interview or an immigration court hearing. They would instead be detained and deported with little due process.

Since he took office, federal judges have issued a handful of rulings to slow or halt components of Trump’s immigration crackdown amid a blitz of lawsuits claiming aspects of those efforts ran afoul of the law or constitution. Judges have ordered the administration to lift a total freeze on refugee admissions and blocked enforcement actions at some places of worship.

Most notably, several federal courts have issued nationwide blocks on Trump’s effort to redefine the Constitution’s birthright citizenship clause to exclude children of undocumented immigrants.

“There is so much urgency here, and so much harm at stake,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who is representing the Venezuelan nationals, at a Saturday hearing. “The government appears to be moving planes very rapidly, our understanding is that planes are going right now.”

On Saturday afternoon, flight tracking databases showed three flights scheduled to depart from the Harlingen, Texas, airport on planes operated by a company that contracts with Immigration & Customs Enforcement to do deportation flights. Two of the aircraft registered flight plans headed for Honduras and one for El Salvador.

Video posted online Saturday showed a bus approaching the airport accompanied by law enforcement vehicles. According to the post, immigration lawyer Jaime Diez recorded the images of immigrants from the El Valle detention center in Raymondville, Texas being transferred for deportation.

Earlier Saturday, Diez won an order from a federal judge in Brownsville barring the deportation of Venezuelan Daniel Zacarias Matos. According to a court filing, Zacarias Matos was told Friday he was being taken to the airport to be deported “due to an order from the President,” but the flight didn’t take off because “it did not pass an inspection.”

One of the Honduras flights took off during a break in Boasberg’s hearing, the databases showed. The status of the other two flights is unclear.

Ali Bianco and Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.