1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Insurance case is ‘but a speck in the recesses…

Judiciary

Insurance case is ‘but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space,’ high-profile appeals judge writes

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 3:07 pm CDT

In a span of less than a week, a conservative federal appeals judge has written two opinions that are getting attention—for taking a tough stand against the mistaken deportation of an immigrant in one case and for waxing philosophical in another case.

In an April 17 opinion, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III took the Trump administration to task for “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process.”

Wilkinson wrote the “blistering” opinion for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia of Maryland, according to the New York Times.

Abrego Garcia was deported to a prison in El Salvador in Central America because of an “administrative error.” The case is Abrego Garcia v. Noem.

Now, Wilkinson is getting attention once again for an April 23 opinion in an insurance dispute involving a man on a lawn mower struck and killed by an underinsured motorist, according to Above the Law and the Judicial Notice newsletter at Original Jurisdiction.

The 4th Circuit held that the man’s estate was entitled to $150,000 under the plain terms of the man’s underinsured motorist coverage—and nothing more.

Wilkinson engaged in “existential, metaphysical musings” at the end of his opinion, according to Judicial Notice.

Here is what Wilkinson wrote: “What after all does it matter? A single, seemingly ordinary, rather technical insurance case. One among the many hundreds of rulings judges make each year.

“What does it matter? A case but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space and in the four-plus billion years since our solar system’s birth. What does it matter, this case deserted by both space and time?

“To be human is to live in the here and now. This small case extracts courageous meaning from the vast impersonality in which it resides. Its immediacy confounds infinity; its passions light the dark. We have given it our best; the litigants have given it their best. The trial court has done the same. We do not overlook for a moment the tragic passing of the insured but neither can we ignore the contract under South Carolina law that defines the insurer’s obligation.”

The insurance case is Owners Insurance Co. v. Walsh.

Wilkinson, 80, was appointed to the 4th Circuit by former President Ronald Reagan, the New York Times reports in a story about his background. He is the “son of a patrician Virginia banker,” an Army veteran and a law grad of the University of Virginia.

He delayed his legal education after one year to unsuccessfully run for Congress in 1970 as a Republican. After law school, he worked as a law professor and in the U.S. Department of Justice.

On the bench, the New York Times reports, Wilkinson has “a long track record of conservative rulings under his belt, having criticized rulings establishing abortion rights while writing approvingly of a broad conception of presidential power.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge finds probable cause to hold US in…

Constitutional Law

Judge finds probable cause to hold US in contempt; is Trump administration ‘at the cusp of outright defiance’?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 16, 2025, 3:53 pm CDT

A federal judge who banned the Trump administration from removing Venezuelan immigrants from the United States ruled Wednesday that there is probable cause to find the government in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying his directive.

The federal government transferred the deportees to a prison in El Salvador in Central America hours after he issued an injunction, the judge said, and officials’ boasts implied that it was done “deliberately and gleefully.”

Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of the District of Columbia said he would give the Trump administration a chance to purge itself of contempt, and if the government doesn’t act, he would identify the people responsible for noncompliance. The final step would be a contempt prosecution, possibly by an appointed prosecutor.

CNN, the Washington Post, Law360 and the New York Times are among the publications with coverage of Boasberg’s April 16 order.

Boasberg ruled a day after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland ordered the administration to provide answers about why it apparently failed to “facilitate” the release of an immigrant mistakenly sent to the El Salvadoran prison, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 10.

The government’s clashes with Boasberg and Xinis have led to the government’s arrival “at the cusp of outright defiance,” the New York Times reports in a separate article. Other examples of the administration’s defiant stance include its freezing of funds that have been ordered released and its refusal to allow the Associated Press to participate in the press pool, despite a federal judge’s decision requiring access.

Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School, told Courthouse News Service that the executive branch “is intent on pushing the bounds of its authority as far as possible and now beyond the breaking point of our constitutional democracy.”

In the case before Xinis, the government has argued that facilitating the return of the immigrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, means only that it must “remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here.”

The government argument “does not pass the laugh test,” Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law SchooL, told the New York Times.

The New York Times concludes that defiance may not be in the form of an outright refusal to follow a judge’s order.

“It may be an appearance by a hapless lawyer who has or claims to have no information. Or it may be a legal argument so outlandish as to amount to insolence,” the article says.

Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings, even though the Supreme Court ruled April 7 that the case had been filed in the wrong venue. The Supreme Court said the immigrants could only challenge their deportation under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 through a habeas action, which must be brought in the district in which they are confined.

Boasberg said the Supreme Court decision, which lifted his temporary restraining order preventing the deportations, “does not excuse the government’s violation.”

Every judicial order must be obeyed until it is reversed, he said.

“If a party chooses to disobey the order—rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process—such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg said the government could purge itself of contempt by giving the deportees sent to El Salvador a chance to challenge their removal in a habeas proceeding by asserting custody over them. The government would not have to release people or bring them back to assert custody.

If the government does not purge itself of contempt, Boasberg will require declarations and possibly testimony, he said. The next step, if needed, would be to seek a contempt prosecution by the Department of Justice, and, if that is declined, to appoint another prosecutor.

The Trump administration planned to seek “immediate appellate relief” from Boasberg’s ruling, according to the New York Times.

The case is J.G.G. v. Trump.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. DOJ opposes court-ordered return of immigrant,…

Attorney General

DOJ opposes court-ordered return of immigrant, suspends lawyer who said he shouldn’t have been deported

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 7, 2025, 2:23 pm CDT

Updated: The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a federal judge’s order to return an immigrant mistakenly sent to a prison in El Salvador in Central America—a move that followed the department’s decision to place one of its lawyers on indefinite leave, apparently for his admissions in the case.

The government is asking the high court to issue an administrative stay to block the order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of the District of Maryland and to vacate her injunction.

The Washington Post and the New York Times have coverage of the government’s April 7 filing, while the New York Times, CNN and NBC News are among the publications with coverage of the DOJ lawyer’s suspension. Additional stories are noted by How Appealing.

The government application claims that Xinis “ordered unprecedented relief: dictating to the United States that it must not only negotiate with a foreign country to return an enemy alien on foreign soil but also succeed by 11:59 p.m. tonight.”

“While the United States concedes that removal to El Salvador was an administrative error,” the application says, “that does not license district courts to seize control over foreign relations, treat the executive branch as a subordinate diplomat, and demand that the United States let a member of a foreign terrorist organization into America tonight.”

Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused Xinis’ deadline Monday afternoon to allow for a full review by the Supreme Court, the Washington Post reports.

Xinis is an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

The government had alleged that the mistakenly deported immigrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, is a member of MS-13, a gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States. Xinis said the government had offered no evidence to show that he is a gang member.

The now-suspended DOJ lawyer, Erez Reuveni, was the acting deputy director of the department’s Office of Immigration Litigation. He had conceded in court that Abrego Garcia should not have been sent to El Salvador, and he had no evidence showing why the immigrant was even arrested, according to NBC News.

“The absence of evidence speaks for itself,” he said. “The government made a choice here to produce no evidence.”

When Xinis asked what kind of practical impediment kept the government from securing Abrego Garcia’s return, Reuveni said he asked the same question when the case was assigned to him.

“I have not yet received an answer that I find satisfactory,” he said.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi told the New York Times in a statement that Reuveni did not follow her order.

“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Bondi said. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”

The case is Noem v. Abrego Garcia.

Updated April 7 at 3:25 p.m. to include reporting on Chief Justice John Roberts’ order.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Meet the federal judge labeled ‘radical left…

Judiciary

Meet the federal judge labeled ‘radical left lunatic’ by Trump, derided by DOJ for ‘micromanaged’ request

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2025, 8:50 am CDT

A federal judge facing President Donald Trump’s ire because of his rulings on deportation authority was once a housemate with Brett Kavanaugh, a future U.S. Supreme Court justice, at Yale Law School.

Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, 62, of the District of Columbia “has a history of bipartisan support,” the Washington Post reports, having been nominated to the District of Columbia Superior Court by a Republican president and to the federal court in Washington, D.C., by a Democratic president.

He also appears for speaking engagements at Yale with U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee, where they emphasize a commitment to rule of law, according to NPR.

But Boasberg is being targeted by Trump, who wrote on social media that the judge is a “radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator” who should be impeached.

Boasberg is overseeing a lawsuit challenging Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. Boasberg ordered the administration not to use the law for deportations and told Department of Justice lawyers Saturday that planes carrying the deportees should be turned around.

Three planes carrying 238 immigrants reached their destination in El Salvador in Central America, the New York Times reports. Boasberg gave the administration a Wednesday deadline to provide details on the flights, which was met with a government request for a stay that said the judge’s quest for information was a “micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition,” NBC News reports.

“Continuing to beat a dead horse solely for the sake of prying from the government legally immaterial facts and wholly within a sphere of core functions of the executive branch is both purposeless and frustrating to the consideration of the actual legal issues at stake in this case,” the DOJ said.

In a March 19 order, Boasberg agreed to provide the government an extra day to decide whether to invoke the state secrets privilege, “although their grounds for such request at first blush are not persuasive.” Rather than engaging in a fishing expedition, he said, he was seeking information “to determine if the government deliberately flouted” his orders.

Boasberg grew up in Washington, D.C., where his father worked for former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, according to the New York Times.

He attended Yale as an undergraduate, where he played basketball and also obtained a master’s degree in history from the University of Oxford. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1990.

After graduation, Boasberg worked as a law clerk for a federal appeals judge, as an associate at two law firms, and as a homicide prosecutor at the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. He was appointed to the District of Columbia Superior Court in 2002 by former President George W. Bush and to the federal bench in 2011 by former President Barack Obama. He also served a seven-year term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

On the bench, Boasberg “is something of a stickler for footnote brevity,” according to a prior ABA Journal story. He has tossed briefs in several suits for violating a local court ruling banning excessive footnotes.

He is also known “for his booming baritone voice and for peppering legal opinions with colorful language and pop culture references,” according to Reuters. In one opinion, Boasberg “cited a Star Trek reference to the Borg catchphrase ‘Resistance is futile,’” the article reports.

He has also been involved in other cases involving issues of importance to Trump.

“In his 14 years on the federal bench,” the Associated Press reports, Boasberg “has resolved secret grand jury disputes that arose during the special counsel investigations into Trump, oversaw improvements after the Trump-Russia investigation in how the Justice Department conducts national security surveillance, and handled his share of sentencings for rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”

One of the rioters called Boasberg a “clown” and a “fraud” during a court hearing. Boasberg “calmly listened,” according to the AP.

The deportation suit is J.G.G. v. Trump.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Trump administration invokes state secrets…

Immigration Law

Trump administration invokes state secrets privilege for deportation flights, disputes Nazi analogy

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 11:02 am CDT

Government lawyers are arguing that the state secrets privilege protects the Trump administration from divulging details about deportation flights to El Salvador in Central America, and that the Venezuelans aboard weren’t entitled to notice that would give them time for a hearing.

Lawyers made those assertions Monday to a federal judge and a federal appeals court considering the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members. The deportees were taken to a prison in El Salvador, where the conditions “are reportedly parlous,” according to Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington, D.C., who is overseeing the challenge to the law.

The New York Times, the Associated Press, Politico, the Washington Post, NPR and NBC News have coverage.

In a March 24 notice, the government invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further details about flights carrying the deportees in what the New York Times termed a “stubborn response” and “a patent act of defiance.”

Boasberg had sought information about the timing of the flights to determine whether the government violated his March 15 temporary restraining order telling U.S. officials to stop or turn around the flights.

The government court filing said disclosing information about tracking of the flights “would both endanger the government personnel operating those flights and aid efforts by our adversaries to draw inferences about diplomatic negotiations and coordination” regarding the removal of “terrorists and other criminal aliens from the country.”

The New York Times said the government stance “is extraordinary in part because it is refusing to provide information to Judge Boasberg—a former presiding judge of the nation’s national security surveillance court—even privately and in a secure facility for handling classified information.”

Earlier Monday, Boasberg refused to vacate his TRO that bans the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act, last invoked during World War II, for the deportations.

The government has argued that Venezuelan gang members were acting under the direction of the Venezuelan government, a hostile nation, and their arrival in the United States was a “predatory incursion,” according to the New York Times.

Boasberg said in his opinion the government’s “unprecedented use” of the act outside wartime “implicates a host of complicated legal issues.” But there was no need to resolve the “thorny question” about the use of the act, Boasberg said, because the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the claim that they were entitled to hearings before deportations.

That issue was before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday as the government sought a stay of the TRO. According to the Washington Post, government lawyers acknowledged that the suspected gang members are entitled to hearings but said the government doesn’t have to tell them that they have been deemed to be “alien enemies” or give them time to request hearings.

D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett commented that there were no procedures in place to notify the suspected gang members.

“Nazis got better treatment,” Millett said, referring to the use of hearing boards to remove suspected Nazis during World War II.

“We certainly dispute the Nazi analogy,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign.

The case is J.G.G. v. Trump.

See also:

Trump’s deportation push tests courts’ ability to check his power

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.