# Trump NUKES Boasberg’s LAWLESS ORDER! AGAIN! Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bq5yi_TcLg Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/_Bq5yi_TcLg Generated: 2026-02-04T21:04:36.142+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview The speaker argues that Judge Boasberg's recent order is lawless because it forces the Trump administration to issue boarding letters for commercial flights to the U.S. for individuals designated as foreign terrorists, which the speaker claims is an overreach of jurisdiction, especially considering that many of these individuals are not currently in U.S. custody and have not established proper standing for habeas corpus relief. **Key Points:** - Judge Boasberg issued an order directing defendants to submit a reply addressing three petitioner proposals, including one for issuing boarding letters for commercial air travel to the U.S. for plaintiffs in Venezuela or third countries (0:02-0:10). - The speaker asserts that the Trump administration's proposal to bring back terrorists is what the judge is essentially demanding, arguing that the judge is demanding the government allow terrorists entry (0:34-1:10). - The defendants' reply argues that U.S. District Courts lack jurisdiction over petitioners remaining overseas, citing that habeas corpus requires custody (2:37-2:44). - The reply highlights that remote hearings are both legally and practically impossible, and that the petitioners' proposals would present 'inexperable legal bars and substantial practical problems' (1:38-1:41, 2:19-2:27). - The document explicitly states that collateral consequences do not supply jurisdiction over future habeas petitions, and there is no legal basis for holding remote hearings without custody (4:26-5:17). - The defendants argue that the judge's ruling that they had constructive custody over petitioners when they filed claims is incorrect, and the proposed remedy is therefore legally unsound (3:37-3:52). - The defendants request an injunction and intend to seek a stay pending appeal from the D.C. Circuit Court (14:56-15:06). ![Screenshot at 00:02: The speaker points to the document showing the court's January 28 Minute Order directing defendants to reply to petitioners' proposals, including one regarding remote proceedings and passport return, setting the context for the legal analysis.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/_Bq5yi_TcLg/00-00-02.jpg) **Context:** The video features an attorney, Andrew Branca, analyzing a recent court filing, specifically a 'REPLY REGARDING REMEDIAL PROPOSAL' in the case of Liyanara Sanchez, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB) in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The filing is a response from the defendants (representing the Trump administration) to a court order concerning remedial actions related to individuals designated as foreign terrorists who are seeking relief, likely related to travel or status under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). ## Detailed Analysis Andrew Branca critiques Judge Boasberg's order, viewing it as unlawfully compelling the Trump administration to facilitate the entry of individuals designated as foreign terrorists into the U.S. by issuing boarding letters for commercial flights. The core of the defendants' reply hinges on jurisdiction: they argue that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over petitioners who remain overseas and are not in custody, which is a prerequisite for habeas corpus relief, citing Supreme Court precedent. The reply explicitly argues that remote hearings are legally and practically impossible, especially for sensitive matters, and that the petitioners' proposals introduce 'inexperable legal bars.' Furthermore, the defendants challenge the lower court's finding of constructive custody over the petitioners while they were abroad, asserting that this defect in the ruling is independent of collateral consequences, which do not supply jurisdiction. The defendants state their intent to immediately appeal and seek a stay pending appeal from the D.C. Circuit Court if the injunction is granted. They also argue that the petitioners' proposal to facilitate travel and grant parole is untenable, noting that the U.S. cannot be expected to negotiate with the Maduro regime to send designated T&A members back, and that the government has the right to examine and preclude proceedings on the papers alone for suspected foreign terrorist organization members. ### Analysis of Boasberg's Order - White House just filed another explanation to this judge - Judge Boasberg is demanding the government allow terrorists back into the U.S. (0:01-1:10) ### Jurisdictional Argument - Federal District Courts of infinite jurisdiction do not have jurisdiction here - Petitioners must demonstrate they were in custody at the time they filed the petition (2:20-2:44, 3:03-3:09) ### Defendant's Response to Remedial Proposal - Remote hearings are both legally and practically impossible - Petitioners propose offering all overseas class members remote hearings on their yet-to-be-filed habeas petitions (1:41-2:26) ### Custody Requirement - Habeas corpus requires custody - Custody cannot be waived, consented to, or ordered as a legal fiction (3:05-3:15) ### Defect in Court's Ruling - This defect exists independent of the Court's incorrect ruling that Defendants had constructive custody over Petitioners when they filed the instant claims (3:37-3:52) ### Petitioner Proposals - Petitioners propose providing boarding letters to facilitate travel and then parole them, which is untenable and a legal/factual nonstarter (10:52-11:26) ### Defendant's Intent - If the court issues an injunction, Defendants intend to immediately appeal and seek a stay pending appeal from the D.C. Circuit Court (14:56-15:06) ![Screenshot at 0:00: The host, Andrew Branca, is visible on the left, with a screen showing a document titled 'BOASBERG'S DERANGEMENT CHECKED!' on the right.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/_Bq5yi_TcLg/00-00-00.jpg) ![Screenshot at 0:26: The screen displays the first page of the legal document, 'REPLY REGARDING REMEDIAL PROPOSAL' in the case of Sanchez v. Trump, outlining the court order the defendants are responding to.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/_Bq5yi_TcLg/00-00-26.jpg) ![Screenshot at 2:26: Text highlighted in the document states, 'AEA designations would present insuperable legal bars and substantial practical problems that together render this an untenable and unacceptable proposal.'](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/_Bq5yi_TcLg/00-02-26.jpg) ![Screenshot at 4:22: The document shows the argument that there would be no jurisdiction over the 'as-yet-unfiled petitions' if petitioners remain overseas and beyond U.S. custody.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/_Bq5yi_TcLg/00-04-22.jpg) ![Screenshot at 15:37: The screen displays the filings list from CourtListener, showing numerous entries, which the speaker calls 'insane' and 'unbelievable'.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/_Bq5yi_TcLg/00-15-37.jpg)