Watch now

Exclusive: California AG Rob Bonta Speaks Out After Judge Blocks Trump National Guard Deployment

California’s top law-enforcement officer joins Michael Popok of Legal AF to unpack how the courts stopped Trump’s unlawful National Guard deployment, and what comes next.

Legal AF and MeidasTouch Network Oct 6

In an extraordinary late-night rebuke of executive overreach, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued her second temporary restraining order in as many days blocking Donald Trump from sending National Guard troops into Oregon. This time, the order came after the administration attempted to sidestep her Saturday ruling by deploying California’s National Guard instead. Moments ago, California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined Legal AF host Michael Popok to break down the legal and constitutional stakes of what has become a dramatic showdown between the federal government and the states.

“This was an Oregon case until about half a day ago,” Bonta explained. “Then it became a California and Oregon case” as Trump ordered roughly 300 federalized California National Guard personnel “moved a thousand miles up north to Portland, where a judge had already said yesterday that the conditions on the ground absolutely do not justify the federalization of National Guard.”

Judge Immergut’s original 31-page order on Saturday held that Trump lacked the legal authority under federal statutes to commandeer Oregon’s National Guard. She wrote that the case “involves the intersection of three of the most fundamental principles in our constitutional democracy” — the relationship between the federal government and the states, the limits on using armed forces for domestic law enforcement, and the role of the judiciary in ensuring the executive branch abides by the law. Quoting James Madison, she warned that “a standing military force with an overgrown executive” is “not long… safe companions to liberty” and concluded, “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.”

Yet within hours, the Trump administration had begun sending California’s Guard into Oregon. According to Bonta, Judge Immergut was “completely miffed” by the attempt to circumvent her ruling. “Her first set of questions of the federal government were, how does this not violate my order from yesterday? And I think she’s right,” he told Popok. “This sort of super-technical approach… was untethered from reality.”

Bonta also revealed that just minutes before Sunday’s emergency hearing, his office learned through a memorandum from Trump’s Defense Secretary that the Texas National Guard had also been federalized, with hundreds slated for deployment to Portland and Chicago. “It is clear that it’s a sort of whac-a-mole approach… you stop the Oregon National Guard from being federalized, [they] bring up the California National Guard. You stop the California National Guard, [they] bring in the Texas National Guard,” Bonta said. “So we asked the judge to issue a broad order… that applies to every National Guard in every state and the District of Columbia.” Immergut granted that request from the bench.

Bonta praised the teamwork between California and Oregon’s legal teams, working overtime on a Sunday to protect constitutional limits. “Democracy needs to be protected every day. And the rule of law does as well,” he said. He also emphasized the real-world stakes: “The conditions have not changed in 24 hours. National Guard being deployed in Oregon was unlawful yesterday. It’s unlawful today as well. It doesn’t matter where the National Guard comes from — Oregon’s, California’s, or Texas’.”

Popok noted the irony of Trump’s attacks on a judge he himself appointed. Immergut, a former federal prosecutor and U.S. Attorney with deep experience in Portland, has been unflinching in her rulings. “She knows what’s at stake. She knows what the issues are here,” Popok said. “She’s following the facts, following the law. Let the chips fall where they may.”

For now, Bonta expects the federal government to comply with the second restraining order, which bars the California Guard from performing any official duties in Portland. But the legal battle is far from over. Appeals have already been filed, and Trump’s pattern of open defiance suggests further clashes ahead. Still, for the moment, the courts have drawn a line. As Bonta summed it up, “The Trump-appointed judge nailed it and appropriately stopped Trump from this unlawful conduct.”

In a moment when the separation of powers and state sovereignty are being tested, Judge Immergut’s orders reaffirm a basic democratic principle: the president cannot simply deploy troops into American cities at will. This is, as she wrote, “a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.”

Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

A guest post by Legal AF Breaking news at the intersection of law & politics with sharp & witty commentary curated by Legal AF x MeidasTouch’s co-founder, Michael Popok.

 

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT ANY OF THOSE WHO WERE DEPORTED HAD CRIMINAL 

RECORDS! THIS IS ALL LIES TO CONVINCE SOME THAT THE WASTE OF $$$ & THE LIES  ARE PRODUCTIVE! 

CRIME UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN DECLINED....WHERE'S THE CRIME THAT THESE 

LIARS PRETEND? TRUMP MADE IT A NON-EXISTENT ELECTION ISSUE - A FRAUD!

THESE CLOWNS WASTED $16 MILLION ON THE GUANTAMO SCAM!

MAGA CLOWNS PROMOTED THE VIDEO OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE!  

'Heck of a stretch': Judge grills DOJ over Trump deportation flights

Officials ignored the judge's directive to turn two flights around, sources say.

ByKatherine Faulders, Laura Romero, and Peter Charalambous

March 17, 2025, 6:24 PM

2:38

Judge convenes 'fact-finding' hearing over Trump deportation flightsA judge is hearing arguments Monday over whether officials knowingly violated a court order when they handed over 200 alleged gang members to El Salvadoran authorities.

A federal judge conducting a "fact-finding" hearing Monday over the whether the Trump administration knowingly violated a court order when it handed over more than 200 alleged gang members to El Salvadoran authorities over the weekend told DOJ attorneys it was "heck of a stretch" for them to argue that his order could be disregarded.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, in verbal instructions issued during a hearing on Saturday, told the government to turn around any aircraft that had already departed the country if they were still in the air. However, sources said top lawyers and officials in the administration made the determination that since the flights were over international waters, Boasberg's order did not apply, and the planes were not turned around.

The verbal instructions from Boasberg accompanied a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deporting noncitizens currently in custody, which the judge issued less than two hours after Trump attempted to invoke the 18th century Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

MORE: Trump administration ignores judge's order to turn deportation planes around: Sources

Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli argued Monday during a "fact-finding" hearing convened by Judge Boasberg thay the judge's directive on Saturday evening to turn around the flights did not take effect until it was put in writing later that evening.

"You knew in the morning that there would be a hearing at 5 p.m., so any plane that you put into an air in or around that time you knew that I was having a hearing about," the judge responded. "So when I said directly to turn those planes around, the idea that my written order was pithier, that this could be disregarded, that's a heck of a stretch."

Lawyers with the Department of Justice refused to provide any additional information about the Trump administration's recent deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, arguing disclosure of the information "national security and diplomatic concerns."

Kambli insisted that the Trump administration had complied with the court's written order -- but provided no additional information to support the claim -- before offering seemingly conflicting defenses and arguing the breadth of Trump's authority as president made the removals lawful.

Alleged members of the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua who were deported by the U.S. government, are detained at the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador in a photo obtained Mar. 16, 2025.

El Salvador Presidential Press Office via AP

"Once that they are in international waters, the president has authority outside of the Alien Enemies Act, which would not have been subject to either order," Kambli said.

"My equitable powers are pretty clear that they do not lapse at the water's edge," Boasberg replied.

Kambli, however, repeatedly refused to provide more information to support his claims, insisting the information would risk national security.

"The information that I am authorized to provide is that no plane took off from the United States after the written order came through," Kambli said.

Judge Boasberg -- who previously oversaw the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court -- pushed back on the idea that the information could not be disclosed to the court.

"What's the basis for not disclosing it to me?" he said.

"Your Honor, it is based on national security concerns with flight patterns and things of that sort," Kambli said.

Boasberg ordered the DOJ to submit, by noon Tuesday, a sworn declaration of what they represented in a filing Monday -- that a third flight that took off after his written order on Saturday carried detainees who were removable on grounds other than the Alien Enemies Act.

He said he would hold another hearing on Friday, barring any stay on the proceedings from the appeals court.

Prior to the hearing, DOJ attorneys argued in a Monday court filing that the court should vacate the hearing because they do not believe they violated the court's orders, and they are not prepared to provide any further operational security or national security details to the plaintiffs or to the public.

Justice Department attorneys subsequently asked the circuit court to step in and stop the hearing and to assign the case to a different judge, but the hearing proceeded as planned.

MORE: Judge blocks Trump from deporting noncitizens under Alien Enemies Act, orders flights turned around

Top DOJ leadership wrote in a filing that "an oral directive is not enforceable as an injunction" -- claiming the government not violate any order because the oral directive in court, issued at 6:46 p.m. ET Saturday, was not in the written order that was filed to the docket at 7:25 p.m. ET.

In a court filing late Sunday night, lawyers with the ACLU and Democracy Forward Foundation argued that the Trump administration may have committed a "blatant violation" of the court's directive by acting as if the order only applied to flights in U.S. airspace and individuals on American soil.

"This Court orally and unambiguously directed the government to turn around any planes carrying individuals being removed pursuant to the AEA Proclamation," the filing said.

Lawyers with the Department of Justice insisted in a court filing Sunday that they removed "gang members" pursuant to Trump's Alien Enemies Act proclamation before the court issued its order.

However, lawyers representing some of the migrants argued that assertion not only conflicts with the timeline of events but also misconstrues when the United States loses jurisdiction of the noncitizens.

"Whether or not the planes had cleared U.S. territory, the U.S. retained custody at least until the planes landed and the individuals were turned over to foreign governments," the plaintiffs' filing said. "And the Court could not have been clearer that it was concerned with losing jurisdiction and authority to order the individuals returned if they were handed over to foreign governments, not with whether the planes had cleared U.S. territory or had even landed in another country."

MORE: Timeline: Trump's race against courts to deport alleged gang members under Alien Enemies Act

Plaintiffs' attorneys said that based on publicly available information, it appears that two flights carrying migrants under the Alien Enemies Act landed after the court's verbal and written orders. They added that "public comments made by Defendants and the President of El Salvador" boasting about the court being "too late" to stop the deportations reinforces concerns that the Trump administration may have violated the order.

"Defendants could have turned the plane around without handing over individuals subject to the Proclamation and this Court's [Temporary Restraining Order]," the lawyers argued.

Finding the deportations would cause irreparable harm, Boasberg's temporary restraining order on Saturday barred the Trump administration from deporting "all non-citizens who are subject to the AEA proclamation" for at least 14 days.

"You shall inform your clients of this immediately any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States," Boasberg said during Saturday's hearing. "However that's accomplished, turning around the plane, or not embarking anyone on the plane. ... This is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately."

 

John Roberts Weighs In

Joyce Vance Mar 18

Today, Chief Justice John Roberts entered the chat.

Although he does not mention Trump by name, his comment that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision” is clearly directed at the president. Elon Musk and Republican elected officials have been flirting with this approach ever since district judges began delivering temporary restraining orders that have prevented Trump from disassembling government full force.

This morning, Trump made a statement of his own. His post followed Judge Boasberg’s decision in the Salvadoran deportation case yesterday. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to read my piece from last night discussing what happened and the implications of the matter. It’s a serious moment for democracy, and it’s important we understand it isn’t about Trump removing “thugs” from our communities, but rather an effort to develop legal support for a dangerously power-engorged version of the presidency, using fear of alien criminals as the vehicle for getting there.

Trump, who as recently as last week during his Justice Department speech railed against people who criticize federal judges—and lavished praise on Aileen Cannon, the judge who derailed the classified document prosecution against him—went on the attack this morning. He used words like “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge,” “troublemaker and agitator,” “sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama,” and wrote, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED.” That followed an all-caps rant about how big Trump won.

With that, the president of the United States places a bullseye on the back of yet another federal judge. This comes in the wake of a rise in threats against federal judges after Elon Musk criticized some judges’ rulings on Twitter. Back in December the chief justice criticized elected officials for trying to intimidate judges. He was concerned about impeachment threats then, as well.

That seems to be the redline for the chief justice, the threat of using impeachment in a way the Constitution does not intend. Impeachment is meant as a way to remove a judge who would otherwise have lifetime tenure from the bench if they commit “high crimes or misdemeanors.” Alcee Hasting was convicted by the Senate after being impeached for soliciting a $150,000 bribe in return for reducing the sentences of two mob-connected felons. Impeachment is not meant for a judge who enters a temporary restraining order that the president doesn’t like. It’s yet another indicator of the Trump administration’s abject disregard for the rule of law.

Every day we need to go through the painful ritual of waking up and reminding ourselves that none of this is normal, that we are living in an America dangerously close to a slide into tyranny. Destroying the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary is always a first step for would-be dictators. Trump is no different.

So it’s important that chief justice took this modest but unusual-for-the-court step today. Perhaps the chief justice will reflect on how frequently he has been called upon to do so during the Trump administration, something almost unheard of during other presidencies. Does it signal that the Court will protect the Constitution as cases begin to arrive there? It’s far too soon to say.

After the chief justice’s statement, George Conway posted, “Welcome to the Resistance, Mr. Chief Justice.” Perhaps that’s a bit premature, or maybe he has finally realized the leopard wants to eat the judiciaries face. In reality, no one should expect or want the justices to take a side in a political fight—we’ve had enough of that with upside down flags and such already. What we are entitled to expect from the Court is an unflagging commitment to the Constitution, not to the president and it’s essential they do that if we are going to make it through this.

The Court, not to put too fine of a point on it, erred in delaying cases and giving a president overly expansive immunity from criminal prosecution. Their decisions are part of the reason that we are where we are today. When Justice Sotomayor wrote, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” it was not just a rhetorical device; it was the truth. So far, the district courts have been holding the line against the encroaching presidency. As I wrote to you early on, with Republicans in Congress asking “how high?” each time this president says to jump, the courts are the hope for holding democracy until the midterm elections. It’s hopeful that there are signs of life there.

Thanks for being here with me at Civil Discourse through all of this. If you aren’t already, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support matters to me and really helps with this work.

We’re in this together,

Joyce