Judge who stated Government cannot deport Venezuelan gang members is upset they didn't turn around a plane.

He apparently is under the delusion that his authority over the Government spreads to military planes over international air space.

Military planes traveling in international air space in Central American cannot just "turn around" and come back to the U.S. like they are a car on their way to work.

They probably would run out of fuel and crash to the ground or into the ocean.

But now this judge (who is very likely to be overturned on appeal) is making a big issue out of this plane not turning around and demanding that the Government provide him with more information as to why. The Government is arguing (rightfully so) that the order was signed and filed after the plane was already in Central America. The judge wants to claim that his "oral order" should have been heeded. Of course, all of the precedent and legal cases are on the side of the Government (and the government offered plenty of previous cases). They are not obligated to follow verbal commands. Heck, generally there are only attorneys at these things. Trump was not around to hear any verbal order. He would have only been brought this information when his attorneys got the filings and brought them to him. Nobody is going to try to "recap" a hearing when they can wait for the legal documents and written decision. To suggests that the verbal order was the valid time that the Government has to follow is ridiculous.

This sound similar to the situation with Mahmoud Khalil. A New York Judge is demanding that the Government bring Khalil back to New York to establish jurisdiction. But at the time of the hearing, Khalil was already in Louisiana. But now people are arguing that the real time was hours before and even then, there is a discrepancy as to when he left New York. He first went to New Jersey, before moving to Louisiana. But if the idea is that the court filings must match where the person is at the time, the filing was not completed till Monday morning, long after he was in Louisiana. All the rest is speculation.

The problem with all of this (which I believe will the argument from the USSC) is that it is not up to judges to question the decisions of Presidents. The various laws that allow for deportation exist and the President has a valid constitutional right to use them. These are not even executive orders. They are laws passed by Congress that gives this authority to the CIC. That the laws exist and provide this authority to the President is all that the courts must legally establish. Unless the law provides for a judicial review, the courts do not have the right to replace the President's opinion with their own. But this is what these judges are attempting to do and this is the real constitutional crisis. 77 million Americans did not vote for any district judge to be the supreme ruler and make these decisions. They voted for a President, and these are his decisions to make.