A federal judge on April 28 requested answers from the U.S. government about deportations that took place after he handed down a preliminary injunction that imposed new requirements.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney Jonathan Guynn offered the same arguments at Monday’s hearing.
Murphy questioned how the Department of Defense could conduct the flights without working in concert with the DHS, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement and is tasked with overseeing detained migrants and executing their deportations.
“What authority would DOD have to effectuate that deportation?” Murphy asked.
Guynn said he could not immediately address that question, saying, “It’s a new day, and there have been lots of changes.” He said he would need to submit further briefing on the issue.
Trina Realmuto, a lawyer at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance representing a group of immigrants pursuing the case before Murphy, said in court that “defendants cannot blatantly disregard the court’s order simply by having another government, department, or agency complete the final step.”
Realmuto urged Murphy to modify his injunction to bar the removal of such immigrants from Guantanamo, something the judge said he was inclined to do but needed to assess if he could. He said he would rule by Thursday.
The Department of Defense has not responded to requests for comment.
After the hearing, Murphy ordered officials to provide the names of any immigrants with final orders of removal who were deported on the two flights, which occurred on or around March 31 and April 13, and to identify any additional flights that removed illegal immigrants from Guantanamo Bay to third countries before those dates.
He also directed the parties to submit a joint discovery plan that addresses topics such as “the relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, including, but not limited to, each agency’s role with regards to removals, the management of Guantanamo Bay, and the March 7, 2025 memorandum of understanding between the two agencies,” and to present arguments on whether he has the authority to modify his preliminary injunction while an appeal is pending.