← Facts Matter
Facts Matter
Judge Orders US Government to Pay for Deportees' Flights Back to US; Trump Voter Roll Request Gets Blocked
00:18:00
Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:00]
A
Good evening. And today let's do a bit of a roundup of some of the most important but underreported stories happening across the country, starting with a new order from a Washington D.C. judge requiring the U.S. government to fly deported Venezuelans back to America. Quote, a federal judge in Washington has ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Venezuelans who he said should should receive a hearing after their deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. Now for your reference here, the judge in question is Judge James Boasberg, who has been, I guess you can say, fighting with President Trump regarding these deportations for the better part of a year now. If you remember, Judge Boasberg was the one who late last year ordered the Trump administration to stop deportations mid flight. He was also the judge who happened to have signed the subpoenas and the non disclosure orders as a part of the FBI's Arctic footage Frost investigation under the Biden administration. That was when the FBI was basically secretly collecting intelligence on sitting members of Congress in their very broad January 6th investigations. Now the Department of Justice as well as several President Trump aligned members of Congress, they've actually been trying to either disbar and or impeach Judge Boasberg, but thus far to no avail. The DOJ misconduct complaint against them, it was dismissed in December of 2025 and the impeachment effort against them has pretty much stalled out in the House. And as such, Judge Boasberg is still the chief Judge of the U.S. district Court for the District of Columbia. And as such, here's specifically what he said in his latest ruling regarding these deported Venezuelans. Quote, Judge James Boasberg wrote in his Feb. 12 ruling that the government must parole those deportees into U.S. custody in if they present themselves at a port of entry and must provide them due process to contest their deportation. The government will also have to pay for the flights and provide a boarding letter to the deportees. But that applies only to those flying in from a third country, not Venezuela. Meaning that after the US Government has already spent money on tracking down these illegal aliens within the interior of the country, catching them, processing them, putting them on a flight and shipping them to El Salvador and then eventually releasing them into Venezuela, those illegal aliens can now demand that the US Government pay for their flight back to the US So that they can have their day in court. But even after that, it doesn't mean that they'll get amnesty, which is a point that Judge Boasberg later admitted to in his court filing. Quote, the return might be short lived. Boasberg said, because anyone who is flown back or paroled into the country will be detained by US Immigration officials and held in custody while their case plays out. They also face being deported again at the end of the proceedings. And indeed, despite the slim chance of success, an attorney for some of the Venezuelan deportees told the judge that several of his clients are interested in taking up the offer despite the risk and coming back to the US to face trial, which again, personally, as a US taxpayer, is just all amazing to me. Now, for their part, the Department of Justice has been fighting back against this order and others like it. Their argument, meaning the DOJ's argument, is, is several fold, including the following quote the Justice Department argued in a court filing ahead of the hearing that Boasberg lacked jurisdiction over the detainees since they had been turned over to the Salvadorian government and released into Venezuela. The DOJ also said remote hearings were infeasible because the US Government would have no way of combating perjury or testing the identity of witnesses in such proceedings. The volatile political situation in Venezuela might also complicate matters. All rational points, especially the point about having a trial by Zoom in Venezuela. But again, as a solution, Judge Boasberg ordered the US Government to pay for these people to physically fly back to the US So that they can present their arguments in person and prove that they were not actually Trend Narragua members. And so that is where we're currently at in this case. Thus far, I will mention no Venezuelans have been flown back, but once they are, I'll give you an update on this story. In the meantime, though, if you want to read the entire order from Judge Boasberg, I'll throw a link to the PDF version of it. You can find it down in the description box below, which is that same description box right below those like and subscribe buttons, both of which I hope you take a quick moment to Smash so the YouTube algorithm will pick this episode up and share it with ever more people. Thank you so much for that. All right, just to pause here for a super quick moment, I'd like to introduce today's sponsor, Shen Yun Performing Arts. It is the preeminent best Chinese classical dance performance in the world. But funny enough, they're actually based right here in the US and and they're not allowed to perform in China part of the show. It exposes the crimes of the Chinese Communist Party and so ironically, they can't even go there. But the show itself is great. I've personally seen it several times and the athleticism the artistry, the stories are phenomenal. Some of them are touching, some are funny, a lot of them are thought provoking. And you're not really allowed to film the show, but basically it looked exactly like the commercials do. Beautiful colors, a full orchestra right there in the theater. They also have the screen in the back that's perfectly timed with the dancers. So sometimes it looks like they're jumping in and out of the screen to tell the story, which is cool. But the best part is that it's just super uplifting in a moral sense. I feel like every time I watch it, I leave the theater as a better person than I did coming in. And most shows nowadays, at least in my opinion, are really subversive and they sneak in some communist elements. But Shen Yun is different. They really showcase traditional culture. And even though it's Chinese, it actually probably resonates with everyone. So check it out. They have shows coming up in like 100 different cities. Dallas, Houston, New York, Memphis, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Seattle, pretty much everywhere else in between. And the best part is that to our viewers, they're offering a special promotional deal. Just buy your tickets over on the Schengen website and use promo code Roman26 to avoid paying both the ticketing fee as well as the facility fee. That's again, promo code Roman26. I'll throw a link to the website where you can find all the different show dates and cities, and it'll be down in the description box below. Moving along, though, in another case involving a judge basically putting the brakes on Trump's agenda, a federal judge has just rejected the DOJ's request for Michigan's voter data. Now, this particular case requires a little bit of backstory to understand. And so let me give it to you. In March of Last year, in March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections. And among several other things, this particular executive order, it required the Attorney General to make a priority of enforcing the laws which prevent non citizens from both voting as well as registering to vote in all 50 states. It also directed the Attorney General to, quote, take appropriate action with respect to states that fail to comply with the list maintenance requirements of the National Voter Registration act and the Help America Vote Act. Now, the National Voter Registration act that's mentioned in this executive order, it's a federal law that was passed by Congress back in 1993, which had the aim of increasing voter registration by US citizens in all 50 states. To that end, it required states to offer eligible voters the opportunity to register using various different methods, including on their driver's license applications as well as by mail. That same law, it also required states to maintain accurate and current voter registration rolls. And so that was one law from 1993. The other law passed in 2002 is called the Help America Vote Act. And that law was enacted by Congress in order to, at least in order to ostensibly ensure that there is uniformity in the voting experience of Americans across all the different states. And to that end, that 2002 law established something known as the U.S. election Assistance Commission, which basically set the minimum standards for states to follow in the administration of their elections. Now for your general reference, under America's federalist system, all states are responsible for administering their own elections. Running elections is very much a state level responsibility. That federal law, however, it just sets minimum standards for all states to follow so that there's not a crazy disparity between the voting experience of, let's say, someone in Vermont versus someone in New Mexico. And so all that is the legal backdrop for what the Trump administration is trying to do. Quote, the Trump administration has since asked states for voter registration lists as a way to ensure compliance with these federal laws. In requests that the Justice Department has cited cancellations based on citizenship ineligibility and high rates of voter registration as reasons for such requests. Meaning due to stories of people getting kicked off the voter rolls because they weren't US Citizens, they decided to request all the voter rolls from all 50 states. Now, thus far, 11 states have agreed to provide at least some of the information that the Justice Department requested. And for your reference, those states are as follows. Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, as well as Wyoming. Then you had 10 other states which have responded, but have sought clarification from the Justice Department regarding the kind of information that the DOJ wants, as well as how that information will specifically be used. However, aside from Those, you had 24 states as well as Washington D.C. flat out refuse the request. Those 24 states are as have Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, as well as, of course, Washington D.C. and the reason for the refusals were summed up Fairly well by Ms. Jocelyn Benson, who is the current Michigan Secretary of State. Take a listen.
- [09:58]
B
There's something important going on right now that you need to know. Something that directly affects you and over 8 million Michiganders whose private personal information is in our state's driving records and voter rolls. The United States Justice Department is trying to get me, Michigan's Chief Election Officer, to turn over your Social Security number, driver's license number and voting information. I told them they can't have it and here's why. The Department of State manages and maintains your driving and voting records in accordance with the law. Federal and state laws include strict privacy protections to keep this data confidential and to keep you safe from identity theft. These laws protect your personal details like driver's license numbers, photos, signatures, Social Security numbers, dates of birth and home addresses. And now the federal government is asking us if and every department like ours in the country to just hand over all that data. They won't tell us. Nobody, not the President, the Justice Department, or any other federal agency has the right to your sensitive private voter information. So when anyone, no matter how powerful they may be, tries to seize your sensitive data, we will protect you and we will protect your information.
- [11:16]
A
Similar rationales were given by California, Georgia, Oregon, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and so on. That's the basic rationale. However, these refusals to comply by the mostly Democrat led states has led the Department of Justice to file lawsuits against those 24 states as well as Washington, D.C. and here's the DOJ's basic argument. Quote in addition to the National Voter Registration act and the Help America Vote act, the DOJ has invoked Title 3 of the Civil Rights act of 1960, which requires states to maintain records of federal elections voting for 22 months afterward clean voter rolls, protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their state's elections are conducted properly, with integrity and in compliance with the law. However, as just a matter of fact, these lawsuits are not proving fruitful. In several federal district courts, the DOJ's lawsuits and their requests have just been thrown out. Which actually brings us neatly back to the case I mentioned at the very top of the episode, the the one out of Michigan wherein a federal judge has just rejected the DOJ's request for Michigan's voter data. Quote A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed the Department of Justice's lawsuit to obtain Michigan's voter rolls, stating in her ruling that the Department is not authorized to have the information. U.S. district Judge Halar Jarbo wrote in her order that she would dismiss the DOJ's lawsuit, saying the state doesn't have to comply with the Department's demands under federal election laws. Now, in terms of her specific rationale, here is what part of what the judge wrote in her order. Quote There is simply no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States suggestion that it can file a Help America Vote act claim, allege no violations of the Help America Vote act, and obtain information to support its as yet non existent claim via discovery. Which in plain English would mean that in her opinion, the DOJ is has not articulated a clear violation of the law, and she's basically saying that they're trying to do a fishing expedition by filing this claim. She also wrote that the text of the law it basically makes it a requirement for states to show the feds their process but not their actual voter roll lists. Quote A reading of a statute of the US Code also suggests that it requires states to disclose information regarding the process of by which they maintain their voter registration list, but not the list itself. Perhaps this result seems odd, but this oddity disappears when one considers that state voter registration lists were often already subject to public disclosure under state law when the National Voter Registration act was enacted. And then to cap off the list of reasons why she's rejecting the lawsuit, she said that the law as formulated by Congress applies only to voter applications themselves and not the voter list maintained by the states. Quote if the distinction between voter registration applications and voter registration list is overly pedantic, it is a pedantic distinction made by Congress, and it is Congress's prerogative to make distinctions that may seem unnecessary to a person reading the statute over six decades after its passage. And so there you have it. And also, it's worth mentioning that this Michigan ruling came on the heels of of similar orders from both Oregon as well as California, who likewise bar the DOJ from getting access to the voter records in those two respective states. Meaning as a practical matter, that the DOJ has, for one, of course a lot of appealing to do in a legal sense. But then also, this might not be the right method to clean up the voter rolls across Democratic states, given the fact that the judges in those states, they don't agree that this method is legally sound. Of course the Republican states are complying of their own volition, but any state that doesn't want to comply doesn't seem like they have to. So we'll see how it ultimately plays out with the appeals process. But in the meantime, if you want to read the full judicial order that came out of Michigan, I will throw a link to the PDF version of it. You'll be able to find it down in the description box below. Which again, I'm sure you already smashed those buttons, but if you haven't, here's another opportunity. Smash those like and subscribe buttons so that this video can reach ever more people via the YouTube algorithm. And then lastly, I mentioned it in the previous episode as well, but I'll mention it here. We recently at the Epoch Times published a great documentary on Charlie Kirk. It's called Truth Under Fire. And it basically, it's an immemorium to Charlie Kirk going through his life, his legacy, his very unique impact on America. But also it traces the quote, unquote extremist label that he was slapped with. How that label came to be, how it evolved over time, how it spiraled out of control and basically infected the minds of people who are already maybe on the cusp and ultimately led to his assassination in front of the entire world. It's a great documentary. It's short, sweet, but powerful. So if you want to check it out, I'll throw a link to it. You can find it down in the description box below. Just click on that link and check it out. It's called Truth Under Fire. Took us several months to put together after his death. And I think it functions as a great immemorial to Charlie Kirk, his legacy, his life, as well as kind of a cautionary tale about, about these labels, how you know, what's seemingly innocuous, Maybe someone just trolling on Twitter or some, you know, content creator at some news organization just writing another article with their, with their, what would you call that boilerplate, you know, copy paste. Oh, Charlie Kerr comma, right wing extremist, blah, blah, blah, you know, Nazi sympathizer, etc. But those labels, they have origins within, within socialist circles, within the kind of like left wing socialist slash communist circles. They're done with a purpose. They're like seeds being planted into the social fabric. So it's not like the people doing it don't know what they're doing. They know what they're doing, but then you never know what that seed will ultimately grow into. In this case, it grew into the assassination. But also the kind of pushback against that assassination. Right, because every action has a reaction. So like on the one hand, of course, Charlie Kirk was killed and. But what grew out of that? I guess the people who ultimately called him a right wing Nazi could have never expected. Right. Anyway, check it out. It's a great documentary, Truth Under Fire. The link will be down in the description box below. And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epic Times. Stay informed. Most importantly, stay free.